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.
Jaladhar Ghosh. Vs. Shasadhar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner and is directed against the order no.247 dated June 29, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Ghatal in Judicial Misc. Case No.1 of 2004 thereby rejecting an application for making a document as exhibit. The said Judicial Misc. Case has arisen out of the Title Suit No.14 of 2004.2. The case in short is that the petitioner and the opposite party no.9 filed a suit being the Title Suit No.14 of 2004 (previously Title Suit No.28 of 2001) for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. At the time of filing the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for injunction with regard to ka schedule property and the learned Trial Judge passed an order of status quo ante by an order dated March 11, 2002. But such order of status quo was not maintained by the opposite party no.1 and for that reason the petitioner filed an applicatio...
Dilip Kumar Shaw. Vs. Sukumar Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/tenant and is directed against the order dated July 10, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sixth Court, Alipore in Rent Control Case No.37 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendant for dismissing the suit on the ground of being not maintainable.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of default, sub-letting, reasonable requirement, etc. In that suit, the defendant/petitioner filed an application raising the question of maintainability of the suit. That application was rejected by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the contention of the petitioner is that the said R.C. Case No.37 of 2005 is not ...
Dheklapara Tea Company Limited and anr. Vs. the Official Liquidator, H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. An order of the Honble Supreme Court of India has occasioned consideration by this Court, of this application by the Tea Board. It is numbered as C.A. 167 of 2008 connected with C.P. No. 558 of 1999. The order of the Honble Supreme Court was made on 6th August 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 365 of 2006, International Union of Food Agricul & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. It said as follows: Interlocutory Application No. 3 is allowed. Having examined the facts of the case, we find that, since 2006, this writ petition has been pending. No steps have been taken under the provisions of Tea Act, 1953. The Tea Estates have been abandoned by the Tea Companies. The workers are left high and dry. They are living in a pitiable conditions. They have not received their dues. Till date, several meetings have been held. However, there is no outcome. In the circumstances, we direct the Central Government to carry out their statutory duties under the provisions of Tea Act, particularly, in terms o...
Sudipta Mondal Vs. Arjun Kumar Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a third party in a writapplication and is directed against an order dated 19th March, 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge, on the first day of moving the writ-application, disposed of the same by permitting the writpetitioner to appear at the interview for the purpose of selection for the post of Group-D staff of a school along with other sponsored candidates. His Lordship further directed that the case of the writ-petitioner should be considered at par with other sponsored candidates for such selection and the age-bar of the writpetitioner should be condoned.2. Pursuant to such direction given by His Lordship, the writ-petitioner appeared and stood first in the selection whereas the appellant before us was the second candidate in the panel.3. The appellant, with the leave of this Court, has preferred this appeal on the allegation that the writ-petitioner was not eligible to be selected for...
S.R. Ramamani Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate Enforcement and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 15, 2010 is questioning the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Management Act, Government of India dated May 24, 2010 (at p.18) that the facts and circumstances of the case in connection wherewith the decision was taken were sufficient to initiate adjudication proceedings under s.51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Counsel for the petitioner, conceding that there is no reason to say that the impugned decision is vitiated by any jurisdictional error, has made two submissions: (i) since no foreign currency was found in the petitioners possession, there is no question of initiating any adjudication proceedings; and (ii) since the criminal case instituted under s.56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 culminated in the petitioners discharge (as will be evident from the document at p.15), there is no scope for initiating adjudication proceedings. 3. Counsel for the respondents has argued...
Gloster Jute Mills Limited Vs. Hooghly Mills Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The prayers are very innocuous. The petitioner being Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. wants reference of the disputes arising out of an agreement dated 24th March, 1988, to an arbitrator to be appointed by the court. 2. The agreement was concerned with a Jute mill in Bowreah, Howrah, known as the North Mill. The respondent argues that this mill never vested in the petitioner, as claimed by them. Neither have any rights under the agreement dated 24th March 1988. So, the petitioner is not a party to that agreement. According to the respondent the ownership of the mill remains with Fort Gloster Industries Limited. Presently, its possession is with Bauria Mills Private Limited. In this circumstance, by my order dated 16th August 2010 I directed the petitioner to serve a notice of this application upon the above two companies. None appeared for Fort Gloster. According to the petitioner they never appeared becau...
Sri Ajit Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Sri Phani Bhusan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.3 dated September 24, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No.248 of 2010 thereby reversing the order dated August 19, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.69 of 2009.2. The short fact is that plaintiffs instituted a title suit being the Title Suit No.69 of 2009 against the opposite parties for partition, declaration and injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs obtained a sanctioned plan from the Panchanyat Authority and they are making construction according to the sanctioned plan. At that time, an objection was raised by the opposite parties contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are making constructions on the best portion of the land and that they did not obtain any sanctioned plan for making the cons...
Mahadev Mahato and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. All these three Mandamus-Appeals were taken up together as the same question of law arises for determination in these three appeals preferred against three different orders passed by the same learned Single Judge on 13th May, 2010, thereby dismissing three separate writ-applications filed by the respective appellant.2. Being dissatisfied, the three unsuccessful writ-petitioners have come up with these mandamus appeals.3. The following facts are not in dispute:a) The writ-petitioners applied for the post of primary teacher before the District Primary School Council, Purulia, by duly filling up the prescribed application- form thereby describing themselves as the members of other backward classes (hereinafter called OBC).b) According to the writ-petitioners, they obtained more than 60% marks in the Madhyamik Examination but they have not been called for written test and interview although it appears that persons obtaining less than the marks obtained by the writ3 petitioners in genera...
Bisnupada Dutta and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. FACTS :-Santana Dutta of Mouza Ramaipur Police Station, Burdwan, District- Burdwan was married to Ashok Dutta alias Bikash Dutta of the same village on Jaistha 24, 1398 B.C. Santana and Bikash had love affairs. The family of Santana was initially not agreeing to the marriage proposal. However, on the insistence of Santana, they agreed. The marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Rites. Dowry amounting to rupees thirty thousand in cash and gold ornament weighing ten Bhories along with other gifts, were given in the marriage. The in-laws family consisted of Bisnupada Dutta, father in law being the Appellant no.1, Swapna Gupta, the sister in-law being the Appellant no.2, Bikash Dutta, the husband and mother in-law. During her stay at her matrimonial home, she was subjected to torture by Bikash, Swapna and Bisnupada. They used to misbehave with her. Just three days before the marriage an additional demand of rupees five thousand was made which the parents of Santana could not fulfil....
Sri Chittaranjan Shit Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. Mr. Samir Kumar Mondal, an advocate and a member of the Bar, has requested for an adjournment on the grounds that Mr. Rajesh Jana, the advocate-on-record for the petitioner in this art.226 petition dated October 29, 2009, has not come to Court. Mr. Das, counsel for the seventh respondent (a private respondent), has objected to the prayer saying that the advocate has been deliberately staying away from the Court with a view to giving the petitioner advantage of pendency of this petition, according to him, a frivolous one. 2. This petition was filed seeking the following principal reliefs: A) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and more particularly the Respondents Nos.6 and 7 to act in accordance with the order passed by the Learned Executive Magistrate, Contai, Dist.- Purba Medinipur in Misc.Case No.201 of 2009. B) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents No.7 not to make any interference with the peaceful possession of the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »