Kolkata Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Biva Pyne and Another. Vs. Chunilal Pyne and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2010
1. Of the several interlocutory applications that have come up for hearing, the one urged first is the defendants application for rejection of the plaint relating to this suit on the principal ground that it is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants say that the first plaintiff had instituted a suit before the Sealdah court and another before the City Civil Court which were based on the same cause of action on which the present suit is founded. The defendants suggest that since the plaintiffs here and the sole plaintiff in the two earlier suits claim on behalf of the Motilal Pyne branch of the family, it would matter little that the second plaintiff, son of Motilal Pyne, was not a party to the previous suits instituted by his mother. The defendants contend that since the plaintiff in the two previous suits had not included the whole of the claim relating to the cause of action without the leave of either court, the plaintiffs here could not have launch...
Jawahar Lal Kapoor Vs. C.E.S.C Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-2010
The Court : The writ petitioner challenges an order of assessment. The assessed amount is Rs.2,11,706/-. In view of the submissions made now, the writ can be disposed of immediately. Mr. Sakya Sen on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client is ready and willing to pay the assessed sum unconditionally. Therefore, on the writ petitioner paying the above assessed sum along with meter replacement cost and reconnection charges, the respondent licensee will reconnect supply within 48 hours of receiving such amount. This writ is accordingly disposed of. The writ petitioner submits that in view of the above payment, the licensee should not institute any criminal proceedings against him. Let the above submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner be considered favorably by the respondent licensee. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Esquire Express Courier Servives And Ors.Vs. Union Of India And Ors'
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-2010
The Court: The writ petitioner is the alleged lessee of a parcel van under the Railways. The question of renewal of such lease is the subject matter of a suit being title suit No.130 of 2010 before the 3rd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah. According to the petitioner, the lease is valid and renewable. But according to the Railways, it has expired. In the above title suit, the learned Judge of the Court below has passed an interim order in an injunction 2 application on 26th July, 2010 restraining the Railways from interfering with loading and unloading of the petitioners goods. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ application is that the stoppage time of the concerned train in particular destination stations i.e. Ludhiana and Jalandhar was so short that the entire goods meant to be unloaded in those station could not be unloaded. This has allegedly happened in April, 2008. According to the petitioner because of this no wagons are being allotted. The petitioner is enti...
Sant Bux Singh Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-2010
THE COURT : Counsel for the Respondent-Kolkata Municipal Corporation today files a supplementary report. Let copies of the same be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner and the other appearing respondents. It is submitted that the Municipal Corporation is scrutinizing the cases in terms of the directions issued by this Court and the whole exercise would take some time. Let the matter be listed after Puja vacation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Municipal Corporation has initiated steps in the matter but it is not upto the expectation and there has not been compliance yet with the orders passed by this Court. It is also submitted that the method adopted by the Municipal Corporation is not satisfactory and the Court should pass further orders giving directions to the Municipal Corporation to initiate criminal proceedings at least against the persons who have been found responsible for disbursing money regarding age-old pension against persons who hav...
Jayanta Kumar Ghose Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-2010
The Court: This is a fresh writ challenging the tendering process of the railways. By my judgement and order dated 19th May, 2010 in GA No.1208 of 2009 with WP No.1982 of 2005 (Jayanta Kumar Ghose Vs Union of India) I had held as follows: Therefore, in the circumstances, I dispose of this writ application by directing the railway authorities which includes Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. to allow the writ petitioner to continue in the same way as he is now operating till the expiry of the period of the 2005 tendering process or 31st October, 2010 whichever is later. Licence fee at the rate paid by him, further to the Order of the Appeal Court dated 31st August, 2006 must be paid. Thereafter, all rights of the petitioner to provide catering services in the Howrah Amritsar Mail will come to an end without any further act to be done by any party. The writ petitioner must vacate the railway establishment by that time with all his men and materials. In default the railw...
Smt. Uma Saha (Banik) Vs. State of West Bengall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-2010
The Court : The service of the Anganwadi worker has been terminated. The office of the Child Development Project Officer by its letter dated 31.1.2008 had asked the writ petitioner to explain certain matters. The objection was that if a candidate was a graduate such candidate could not be considered for such work and that the writ petitioner was a graduate and had suppressed that fact. Such was also observed in the letter dated 4th of February, 2008 which is Annexure P-3 at page 27 of the petition. I think a hearing ought to have been given to the writ petitioner. Although I am not setting aside the decision contained in the letter dated 4th of February, 2008 I direct the Child Development Project Officer to review its decision after considering the representation of the writ petitioner dated 21st September, 2010 being Annexure P-4 at page 28 of the writ petition and after giving her an opportunity of hearing and by a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of commu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›