Kolkata Court December 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.
Srilekha SenguptA. Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) Dipak Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the tenant and is directed against the order dated July 5, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta in A.R.C. No.5 of 1997 (Eviction) thereby allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.2. The short fact is that the father of the opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and that suit was compromised in 1990 on transfer of the tenancy of the petitioner from the second floor to the mezzanine floor. The learned Additional Rent Controller delivered a judgment on November 11, 1999 dismissing the application for eviction. Then one revisional application was preferred being C.O. No.345 of 2000 which was disposed of by Honble Mr. Justice Tapas Kumar Giri (as His Lordship then was) by an order dated September 16, 2008. By the said order, the Honble Mr. Justice Giri remanded the matter to the learned Additional Rent Controller, Calcutta for a fresh decision on the basis of the subsequent facts,...
Bholanath DuttA. Vs. Shefalika Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the tenant/petitioner and is directed against the order dated August 13, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Execution Case No.13 of 2009.2. The decreeholders filed the execution application being numbered as Title Execution Case No.13 of 2009 to execute the decree passed in the Title Suit No.63 of 1965. That decree was resisted and the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the C.P.C. claiming that he is a bona fide tenant in respect of the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint and that he has been paying rent of the premises in suit all along. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/decreeholders/opposite parties herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. praying for police help for executing of the decree. The two applications were respectively recorded as Misc. Case No.866 of...
Md. Tarique Jamal Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The writ petitioner in this proceeding seeks appropriate direction upon the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission (Commission) for recommending his name as Assistant Teacher of English (H/PG) category in an Urdu Medium Madrasah. The specific claim of the petitioner is that there is a vacancy for such a post in Moulana Mohammed Ali High Madrasah in Kidderpore, Kolkata - 700 023. 2. Appointment to the vacant post of teaching staff in different Madrasahs is regulated through a State Level Selection Test conducted by the Commission. The petitioner had appeared in such test in the year 2008 and was ranked fifth in the category of Assistant Teacher in the panel prepared for the said post. From the said panel prepared subsequent to the Selection Test of 2008, four candidates had been appointed in different Madrasahs. All these four candidates were ranked above the petitioner. The petitioner was kept in the waiting list as there was no further vacancy. The case of the petitioner is that t...
Kartik Misra and ors. Vs. Partha Bagdi and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.118 dated June 6, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Bankura in Title Suit No.92 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application for appointment of a handwriting expert.2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/petitioners. That suit is being contested by the defendants / petitioners and the suit is at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs produced certain documents for marking exhibits and the concerned R.S. record of rights was also filed which was marked as exhibit no.2 with objection. The defendants challenged the genuineness of the contents of the said document contending that certain fresh insertions had been made by deleting the original particulars. They filed an application for appointment of a handwriting expert to examine the R.S. record of ...
Sk. Ahmad Ali Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 29, 2010 is questioning a decision of the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakf, West Bengal dated November 25, 2010 (at p.69). 2. The petitioner submitted an application dated October 8, 2010 (at p.67) requesting the Board of Wakf as follows : a) To carryout the repairing & colour painting works of the building of Mazar Sharif at the said Wakf estate. b) To keep open the lock of the main gate of Mazar sharif for enabling the devotees to go inside for offering prayers and paying homages on 6th & 7th December, 2010. c) To clean the jungles, bushes, rubbish etc around the Mazar Shariff for proper maintenance of environment in the area. d) To construct the latrines to prevent from committing nuisance here and there to maintain proper environment. 3. The impugned decision was given dealing with the requests made by the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, who was one of the two authorities to whom the letter dated October 8...
Vinay Kumar Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
1. The petitioner in this art. 226 petition is questioning a decision of CESC dated November 19, 2010 (at p.40) that his existing supply of electricity through a separate meter would be disconnected. 2. In the premises the licensee installed a block meter according to the provisions of reg.19 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Providing New Connections) Regulations, 2005. 3. The provisions of reg.19 of the regulations are quoted below: 19. Installation of Block Meters in extremely congested places like bustees, markets, etc.In bustees, markets, etc. where it may not be possible to segregate one consumer from an adjacent consumer because of existence of a very large number of consumers in a relatively small premises, and where because of multiplicity of the wirings of such a large number of consumers, there may arise fire and safety hazards, the licensee may effect supply of electricity to all the consumers/intending consumers through a su...
Sm. Kalpana Bose Vs. Sri Nepal Chandra Roy and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This appeal is directed against judgment of remand dated 29th of January, 2007 and decree thereof dated 13th February, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Midnapur in other appeal No.7 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree of ejectment dated 19th December, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Midnapur in other Suit No.126 of 1991.2. The appellant /plaintiff/landlord filed said suit for eviction against respondent/defendant/tenant on the ground of default as well as on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit shop room for use by` her husband. The suit as usual was preceded by a notice of ejectment. Plaintiff has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a shop room by her husband. Later at the instance of the plaintiff/landlord part 3(a) elaborating the justification of requirement of the suit shop room was added in the plaint by way of amendment.3. The respondent / defendant /tenant contested ...
Kashi Nath Bose and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by 22 Petitioners who are said to be employees of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the said Council). They have prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw the Memo dated 15.1.2008 as contained in Annexure-P/15 (page 106 of the Writ Petition) by which the Secretary of the said Council, while dealing with their Representation dated 2.1.2008, advised them to approach a Court of Law for redressal of their grievances. The Petitioners further pray for a Direction upon the Respondents to revise their basic scale of pay at Rs. 450/- with effect from 10.10.1981 and release all other consequential benefits which are payable to them on account of subsequent revisions of pay scales. 2. According to the Petitioners, they were appointed along with the Respondent Nos. 14 to 40 on the post of Lower Division Clerks (on adhoc basis) during the period ranging from 1979 to 1981. Thereafter the Petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›