Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant appeal the legality and propriety of the judgement and order passed by a Learned Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 23678(W) of 2005 has been challenged. 2. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner appellant is a science graduate from the University of Calcutta. On 9th March, 1999 the managing committee of Dhakuria High School (Chandpara) under Gaighata P.S. of District North 24 Parganas took a resolution to appoint the petitioner temporarily to the post of clerk. Accordingly on 15th March, 1999 appointment letter was issued in his favour by the Secretary of the school asking him to join. Accordingly he joined as a clerk on 01.04.1999 and is continuing in service since then. On 17.01.2004 the managing committee decided to fill up the vacant post of clerk and accordingly the headmaster concerned on 17.02.2004 approached the Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bongaon sub division to accord permission for filling up the said post of clerk. 3. On re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant application being CRAN 1492 of 2010 the petitioner, Shehnaz Quadery has prayed for adding her as an opposite party in CRR No. 3387 of 2009 filed by the petitioners therein for quashing of the entire proceeding. 2. Learned lawyer for the petitioner applicant has submitted that Sash Hazari Wakf Estate was created in pursuance of a forman issued by Mughal emperor. In 1941 the said Wakf estate has been duly enrolled with the Wakf Board with the object of various purposes including maintenance of the Piran-e-Pir Darga Sheriff. After death of former Mutwali Syed Shamsur Rahaman the present applicant being daughter of Syed Shamsur Rahaman and one Rubee Noor, daughterin-law of deceased Samsun Nahar Begum became joint Mutwali in respect of the said Wakf property which was approved by the Board of Wakf in its meeting held on 12.11.2002 and 24.12.2002 and in a communication dated 31.12.2002 it was further communicated by the Board that their tenure was for a period of five years...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant applications, analogous in nature, the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2008 arising out of judgement dated 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrare, Bolpure in connection with G. R. Case No. 360 of 1987 has been challenged. 2. The petitioner Ujjal Nag, @ Ujjal Kumar Nag has filed the application being C. R. R. No. 3474 of 2009 against three opposite parties namely, Sunil Kumar Das, Jitendra Kumar Das and Nemai Chandra Mondal contending inter alia, that he along with his family members used to stay at his residence where he also runs a shop for repair and sale of torch light and gas light etc. On 30.09.1987 the said accused persons entered into his premises and shop, assaulted the members of his family and destroyed and damaged domestic articles, essential materials and goods of the said shop. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant revisional application the legality and propriety of the proceeding in C. R. Case No. 1049 of 2007 under Section 406/120B IPC and order passed therein dated 04.10.2007 now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Siliguri has been called in question with prayer for quashing of the same. 2. Both the petitioners contend that the petitioner no. 1 is the father-inlaw of the defacto complainant, i.e., the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 2 is her mother-in-law. Their son was married to OP No. 2 on 22.11.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and after marriage they led conjugal life at the place of vocation of his son Som Sankar Banerjee at Mumbai. In the month of June 2005 his son was transferred to Bangalore where the OP No. 2 used to reside with him. On 23.02.2006 the OP No. 2 left her matrimonial home at Bangalore with her belongings along with her mother and brother and their attempt to bring her back was proved to be abortive. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the respondent and is directed against the order no.14 dated May 4, 2010, order no.15 dated July 12, 2010 and order no.16 dated August 23, 2010 passed by the Estate Officer in proceeding nos.178 and 179 of 1993 pending before the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust. The opposite party herein instituted the proceeding nos.178 and 179 of 1993 before the Estate Office, Kolkata Port Trust against the petitioner praying for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of the plot nos.JS18A and JS18B at a monthly rental of Rs.944.79 paisa and 73.63 paisa respectively payable according to English calendar month. By the order no.10 dated March 3, 1999, the Estate Officer directed the petitioner to pay an account payee cheque / pay order amounting to Rs.2,14,565.43 to the opposite party positively before April 16, 1999 for the occupati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. 51 of 2010 setting aside the order dated 18-03- 2010 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I in CDF Case No. 136 of 2010 at the instance of the petitioner herein. 2. Heard Mr. Banerjee, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 3. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned State Commission was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. A complaint case was initiated by the opposite party herein against the petitioner before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I. The said proceeding was registered as CDF case No. 136 of 2006. The petitioner was contesting the said complaint case by filing objection th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.73 dated April 18, 2005 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Burdwan rejected the prayer of the petitioner for accepting the written statement filed by him earlier and fixed the next date for ex parte hearing in Title Suit No.222 of 2001.2. The defendants / opposite parties instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.69 of 1998 (subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No.222 of 2001) against the petitioners praying for a decree of declaration of their tenancy right and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property and also from disconnecting the electric line. The suit was instituted on March 12, 1998 and the defendants appeared in the suit on April 4, 1998. But the written statement was filed by them on March 9, 2005, i.e., after about seven years from the date of appearance. Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the prayer for accepting the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. BACK DROPGajen Barman had love affair with Tutul. They both belonged to village Falakata Hospital Para, Police Station Falakata in the district of Jalpaiguri. The parents of Tutul were agreeable to the marriage. Initially, Gajens family had objection. Ultimately, the marriage was fixed and held on 16th Shraban, 1393 B.S. Soon after marriage, the in-laws particularly the mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Bhasur) and his wife (Ja) inflicted torture upon Tutul. Tutul was subjected to physical torture. Gajen started living in a separated room in the same house having a separate mess. Despite being separated from the family, the assault continued. Tutul used to report to her parents. The parents informed the neighbours and requested Gajen to take appropriate action.2.INCIDENTOn February 22, 1989 at about 3:45 p.m. Malina, the mother of Tutul saw some people taking Tutul to the Hospital. Tutul sustained burn injury. She was kept in a balcony of the Female Ward of Falakata Hospital. She re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The principal matter is under Sections 25 and 29 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913. The first of the two sections empowers the High Court to make such orders as it thinks fit in respect of any trust property vested in the official trustee, or the interest or produce thereof. The other section, inter alia, permits the official trustee to transfer any property vested in him to any person if so directed by the court. The first petitioner claims to be a beneficiary under two trusts of 1912 and 1930. The second petitioner is the secretary of the first petitioner school. The official trustee is the sole trustee of the trust.2. By a deed of conveyance executed in 1938 the official trustee, as the sole trustee of the relevant trust, purchase land measuring 76 bigha and 17 cottah, commonly known as the Ezra Arakie Park in Ariadaha, in what is now on the northern fringes of the city. In 1950 the official trustee demised a part of such land measuring about 40-bigha in favour of one BM Singh a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants/petitioners and is directed against the judgment and order dated March 18, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourteenth Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Civil Revision Case No.295 of 2002 thereby affirming the order no.55 dated April 8, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Baruipur, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.192 of 1997.2. The short fact is that the opposite parties instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No.192 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, District South 24 Parganas against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and other reliefs through their alleged constituted attorney, Mansur Ali Molla. The petitioners have been possessing the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, since purchase in the year 1992. The so-called power of attorney is a forged document and Mansur Ali Molla was no...
Tag this Judgment!