Kolkata Court December 2010 Judgments

The Secretary, Kurmail Sonaulla High School and anr. Vs. Smt. Latika B ...

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the steps taken by the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal against the Kurmail Sonaulla High School and also for approval of the same by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order under appeal. 2. It appears from the records that the school authorities applied to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur for issuance of prior permission in order to fill up the Group-D post of Matron. The said District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur accorded the permission for filling up the said post. The school authorities, thereafter, submitted requisition to the District Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of the eligible candidates for filling up the said post of Matron. The District Employment Exchange, Balurghat sponsored the names of 20 candidates and an advertisement was also issued by the school authorities inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the said Gro...

Sandhya Ghose and ors. Vs. Ms. Raghunath Dutta and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated April 6, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.52 of 1999 thereby rejecting the misc. appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge in Misc. Case No.45 of 1987 arising out of the Title Suit No.94 of 1967.2. The opposite party/plaintiff filed a title suit being Title Suit No.94 of 1967 for declaration and other reliefs. In that suit, the defendants appeared and they were contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. Accordingly, issues were framed. But, at the time of peremptory hearing of the suit, the defendants did not appear and for that reason, the said title suit was decreed ex parte on September 9, 1971. Thereafter the defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Case No.42 of 1971. That misc. case was dismissed for d...

Sri Dilip Kumar Panja and ors. Vs. Sri Goutam Kumar Panja and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated August 3, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.66 of 2000 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.66 of 2000 against the defendants/petitioners herein praying for a decree for declaration, confirmation of possession, injunction, etc. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and they are contesting the same. During pendency of the said suit, the defendants filed an application for amendment of their written statement praying for addition of certain new facts and such prayer for amendment of the written statement was granted by the learned Trial Judge after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, amendment of the written statement took place. Thereafter, on going through the amended written statement thoroughly, the ...

Ms. Careway Transport of IndiA. Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corpo ...

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is directed against the order dated December 22, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Calcutta, West Bengal in E.S.I. Case No.117 of 1993 thereby dismissing the said case on contest.2. The short fact is that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in road transport business and it never engaged 20 or more persons at any time. In July, 1993, the petitioner received a letter from the opposite party contending that the petitioner is covered under the provisions of E.S.I. Act and so it is required to be registered by submitting the prescribed form no.01. The petitioner contended that at no point of time, it employed 20 or more persons in its establishment. So, question of registration under the provisions of the said E.S.I. Act does not arise. The petitioner has a small office in Siliguri and other provinces outside West Bengal where the provisions of the E.S.I. Act have no force. Therefore, the petitioner is not covered under the...

Sri Bijali Kumar MannA. Vs. Sri Tarun Manna and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.1 and is directed against the order No.39 dated March 20, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.42 of 2002 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The short fact is that the petitioner instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.29 of 1992 for declaration of his share and partition. That suit was decreed in the preliminary form. Thereafter, a partition commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report. Thereafter, the final decree was drawn up on May 15, 1996. Sri Tarun Manna was the defendant no.6 in the said Title Suit No.29 of 1992. Subsequently, Sri Tarun Manna filed a suit for partition being Title Suit No.42 of 2002 and in that suit he filed an application for addition of parties and that application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.1 of the said suit, namely, Title Suit No.42...

Motleb Ali Molla (Dead) and ors. Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Boar ...

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order no.6 dated January 9, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal, Kolkata in Appeal No.6 of 2007 thereby dismissing the same on the ground of being not maintainable.2. The appellant filed a petition before the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakfs, West Bengal claiming for the membership of the Mutawalli Committee in respect of Bahadur Molla Wakf Estate, enrolled under the E.C. No.10339, Howrah. The M.E. committee of the Board of Wakfs considered the petition of the appellant and a Resolution dated March 29, 2003 was adopted rejecting the claim of the appellant. The said Resolution was thereafter placed before the Board of Wakfs, West Bengal and then the Board of Wakfs, West Bengal confirmed the said Resolution on April 18, 2007. Being aggrieved by such decision of the M.E. committee on the part of wakfs and subsequently by the Board of Wakfs, the appellant preferre...

Sourendra Nath Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the orders dated April 27, 2009 and June 30, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.360 of 2000 thereby rejecting the prayer for appointment of a handwriting expert and also a prayer for review of the earlier order.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted the Title Suit No.360 of 2000 praying for a decree of recovery of possession from a licensee after cancelling the licence. In that suit, the petitioners appeared and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and also by making a counter-claim that they and the plaintiff are the joint owners in respect of the property in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The said suit was at the stage of recording evidence and the plaintiff tendered his evidence. During the cross-examination of the P.W.1, certain letters were tendered to the witness and the P.W.1 stated ...

Sulekha Nag Vs. Pranati Banerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

1. Challenge is to the order dated August 27, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, S.C.C. Court at Sealdah in the Misc. Appeal No.62 of 2007 thereby setting aside the order no.35 dated July 19, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in the Misc. Case No.31 of 2006, arising out of the Title Suit No.222 of 2003 of the First Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah.2. The decreeholder has filed this application for setting aside the order dated July 19, 2007 passed in the Misc. Case No.31 of 2006. He obtained an ex parte decree for recovery of possession. Thereafter, the judgment debtors filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No.31 of 2006. That misc. case was rejected by the learned Civil Judge by the order dated July 19, 2007. Being aggrieved by that order, the judgment debtors preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.62 of 2007 which was allowed by the impugned order thereby...

Debasree Das Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

Reported in: AIR2011Cal57

1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writpetitioner and is directed against an order dated July 6, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writapplication with a finding that IDBI Home Finance Ltd., one of the respondents, took possession of the property in question in exercise of its statutory right as the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such, the remedy of the writ-petitioner lay before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. 2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal. 3. According to the writ-petitioner, one Uttam Mondal took loan from the Manager HSBC Ltd. for purchasing the flat in question at the ground floor of premises No.9A Canal Road from one Debasis Roy, the owner of the flat and a deed was als...

Himadri Mukherjee Vs. Bimal Chandra Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata Appellate

Reported in: AIR2011Cal60

1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of the respondent No.7 in a writ-application and is directed against an order dated September 8, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ-application by setting aside the resolution dated January 14, 2010 adopted in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, and the action taken on the basis of such resolution. 2. Being dissatisfied, the respondent No.7 has come up with the present appeal. 3. The following facts are not in dispute: a) The writ-petitioner is running a Motor training school, namely, Nadia Motor Training School, at Krishnagar, for imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles by following the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Licensing Authority issued a licence in favour of the writ-petitioner for running of the said Motor Training School. b) On 11th April, 2008, the Additional Chief Secretary, Governme...