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.
Golok Lall Seal. Vs. Dsk Real Estate Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 24th June, 2010, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Eighth Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 1673 of 2009 by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no.2 was rejected by the Learned Trial Judge. The said defendant is aggrieved. Hence he has come before this Court with this application. 2. Heard Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ray Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party. 3. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 4. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 5. It is well-settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to consider the pleadings made...
Bipasha Bhowal. Vs. Biplab Bhowal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1. Admittedly the parties are married couple. Matrimonial dispute arose between them. Husband filed a suit for divorce against the wife. Wife filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal right. Both the suits are being tried analogously. 2. Admittedly the parties have two children; one daughter and a son. The daughter is major. The minor son is a school going child. 3. It is also an admitted fact that the parties are living separately. The wife is staying in the matrimonial home at 65, South-end Park, Kolkata-29. Minor son is staying with her. Though the major daughter stays in the said premises but she is staying separately in a separate mess. Husband stays at a premises at Salt Lake. Husband is a businessman having several businesses. The wife was a director of the husbands company so long as the cordial relationship was maintained between them. The wife however ceased to be a director of the husbands company when the cordial matr...
Mamata Seal and ors. Vs. Santana Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.39 dated April 2, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fourth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.92 of 2003 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint upon payment of costs and rejection of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest / opposite parties herein instituted a suit for recovery of possession against the defendants predecessor-in-interest on the ground of reasonable requirement and other grounds. The defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement.3. It may be noted herein that the original plaintiff sold out the entire property during the pendency of the ejectment suit. The contention of the petitioner is that the ground of reasonable requirement as was available to the previous landlord cannot be a cause of action to proceed with the suit f...
Md. Shamim Khan. Vs. Mr. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.45 dated June 11, 2008 passed by the learned Civil (Senior Division), Asansol in Title Suit No.115 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted a title suit being the Title Suit No.10 of 1998 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Asansol praying for specific performance of contract. That suit was disposed of directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest in respect of the money taken. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Honble High Court, Calcutta which is registered as F.A.T. No.3445 of 2002. That appeal is still pending.3. Subsequently, the defendant of that suit filed a title suit being the Title Suit No.115 of 2002 praying for eviction and recovery of possession against the plaintiffs of the title suit no.10 of 1998. Now, the contention ...
Md. Kudrat Ali Ostagar. Vs. the Board of Councillors of Santipur Munic ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.25 dated January 15, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranaghat in Title Suit No.100 of 2008 whereby an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner was rejected.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.100 of 2008 against the defendant/opposite party and other proforma defendants praying for permanent and mandatory injunction. The defendant is contesting the suit. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for local investigation and that petition was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has preferred this revisional application.3. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order can be sustained.4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the...
Gopinath Pal and ors Vs. Smt. Chyana Patra
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This Second Appeal was filed by the defendant / tenant against judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1991 passed by learned Second Assistant District Judge, Howrah in Title Appeal No.94 of 1990 reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1990 passed by learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.230 of 1984.2. By the impugned judgment learned First Appellate Court passed a decree of eviction against appellant / defendant / tenant on the ground of reasonable requirements of suit premises by the landlord / plaintiff. At the time of admission of the second appeal Honble Division Bench observed that appeal would be heard only on the ground of partial eviction vide the order dated 22.08.1991. Honble Division Bench was also pleased to grant stay of execution of the decree on condition that appellant /defendant / tenant would vacate and deliver peaceful possession of one of the bed rooms to the respondent / plaintiff within the fortnight from the date. It came out during hearing that...
Moktar Sk. and anr. Vs. EasIn Sk. and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated July 19, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Jangipur in Title Suit No.12 of 1999 thereby accepting the pleader commissioners report filed in the said suit.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein filed a suit being the Title Suit No.12 of 1999 praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the property in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants are contesting the said suit. The plaitniff filed an application for investigation of the suit property in view of the contentions raised by the defendants relating to identity of the suit property. Accordingly, on the prayer of the plaintiff, a survey passed lawyer was appointed for making investigation on the points as appearing at page no.29 of the application as annexure B. The learned commissioner held inspection...
Uttam Das. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/13.03.2008 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, in Sessions Trial No. 1(10)2006 arising out of Sessions Case No. 17(3)2006, of G.R. Case No. 1456/2005 in connection with Habra P.S. Case No. 259 dated 29.08.2005 for offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C., where the court convicted the accused for having committed offence under section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. The prosecution case can be summed up as under:-3. Shri Swapan Das, resident of Zeoldanga, P.O. Jashur, under the jurisdiction of Habra P.S., district North 24-Parganas lodged a report on 29.08.2005 that his daughter Laxmi Das aged about 12 years was raped by the appellant-accused Uttam Das in the agriculture field (Barbati Khet) about 10/12...
Sri Preety Kumar Mullick and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The Court :- The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 9, 2010 are seeking a mandamus commanding the first five respondents to pay water tax demanded or to be demanded by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and also to reimburse them proportionately with respect to water tax they have already paid for the premises parts whereof have been rented by those respondents. 2. Counsel concedes that the tenancies were created according to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the tenants are entitled to protections under provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Faced with the question of maintainability of the petition, he has referred me to orders of this Court made in two previous art.226 petitions and has said that seeking the reliefs the petitioners are entitled to approach the High Court under art.226. 3. It is evident from the orders made in the previous cases that in none of them the question whether an art.226 petition concerning t...
Swapan Kumar Das Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 24.12.1987 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 7(i) a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) by the learned Judge, Special Court, Midnapur on 24.12.1987.2) In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.7.1984 at about 12 hours Makhan Lal Biswas, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to District Enforcement Branch (P.W. 5) along with Constable Bhuneswar Tewary (P.W. 2) had been to the fertiliser dealer shop-cum-godown of the appellant. The appellant was not present at that time but his employee Susanta Samanta was found conducting the business. On checking the stock register, sale register and other documents found available, the P.W. 5 found shortage of 10 quintals of phosphate which was not entered in the register board of stock of the fertiliser. On questioning, Susanta Samanta failed to give any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »