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.
Semila Bibi. Vs. Hare Krishna Pramanik.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. These second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1997 passed by the learned court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hooghly in title appeal nos. 233 of 1992 and 235 of 1992, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29/08/1992 and 04/09/1992 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Chandannagore in title suit nos. 36 of 1983 and 108 of 1983.2. The appellant Smt. Semila Bibi being the plaintiff filed both the suits, in the trial court for delivery of khas possession along with recovery of arrear rent against defendant tenant in respect of two separate tenancies. According to the appellant/plaintiff, suit premises belonged to one Karu Parsi who was in possession of the same. On his demise his grand daughter Ashalata Dasi inherited the suit properties and while she was in possession inducted the respondent/defendant as tenant in respect of two parts of the property, i.e. the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 17/- per month and ...
Prasanta Ghose Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. FACTS :-On July 3, 1987 the victim Rina Ghose went missing and thereafter found dead. The accused was the husband of the victim. It was alleged that there had been dispute over dowry. It was settled in a village compromise. Three days before the dowry could be given as per the village compromise, the victim was murdered. Police arrested the appellant who pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura tried the above appellant along with the other accused. The appellant was held guilty of the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when other accused were acquitted of the charges. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.2. EVIDENCE :-PW-1 (Manmatha Ghosh) :-The witness was the unfortunate father of the victim. According to him, Rina was married to Prasanta, the appellant above named. Manmatha could not give dowry and utensils giving rise to a dispute. In a village compromise (Salish) Manmatha was asked to give dowr...
Tarun Kumar Jana Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 30, 2010 is questioning a notification of the State Government dated October 25, 2010 (at p.24) directing that the order dated September 27, 2010 made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Case No. 449 of 2010 under s.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall remain in force for a period of two months from the midnight of October 26, 2010. 2. It is evident that the notification has been issued in exercise of power conferred on the State Government by the provisions of the proviso to sub-s.(4) of s.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They empower a State Government, if it considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, to direct by notification that an order made by a Magistrate under s.144 shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Mag...
Jameshedpur Cements Ltd and anr. Vs. the Official Liquidator
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. This is an application by one ex director of the Company in liquidation. It is made after a misfeasance proceeding has been started against him. He is respondent No. 4 there which is numbered as C.A. No. 14 of 2008. He submits that the proceeding against him be dropped. 2. The grounds are two. The first is that the summons by which the misfeasance proceeding was started and the points of claim do not disclose any case of misfeasance against him. Therefore, following the principles that are applied by a Civil Court to take a plaint off the file and dismiss the suit when no cause of action is pleaded in the plaint, this summons should be dismissed. Secondly, the applicant, as director had resigned on 28th December 1995. The winding up order was made on 14th January 2003. Hence, he could not possibly be involved in any acts of alleged misfeasance concerning the company. Thus, on such evidence he should be relieved from the proceeding. FACTS IN DETAIL:Now, let me examine the facts in mo...
Md. Asgar Khan Vs. Sultan Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the decreeholder and is directed against the order dated no.141 December 15, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.23 of 2004 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.18 of 1994 thereby allowing applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.2. The short fact is that the petitioner instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.476 of 1969 for eviction on the ground of sub2 letting against the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma opposite party no.2 before the learned Munsif, First Court, Sealdah and that suit was decreed on contest directing the proforma opposite party to deliver vacant possession of the premises in suit in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of decree dated December 23, 1993. The judgment debtors having refused to deliver vacant possession, the petitioner had no other alternative but to file a title exec...
Jharna Mallick. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. It is easy to cite Rules to avoid uncomfortable situations. It is difficult to intercept them by way of meeting such situations. Without being caught in the Scylla of the easy and Chharybdis of the difficult, we would be required to gain control over the situation that has fallen for consideration before us in this Appeal, wherein the Appellant having suffered reverses before the learned Trial Court, preceded by cold response from the Respondent No. 4 and 5, has sought to retrieve her lost fortune.2. Having lost her soul mate, who was an erstwhile teacher in the Barakhata Primary School under the control of the Respondent No.4, she prayed for compassionate appointment on 10/06/1998 i.e. just after two years of the demise of her spouse on 11/06/1996.3. In her prayer for compassionate appointment before the Respondent No.5, she had articulated the fact that she lacked the necessary qualifications for the said post but was awaiting her results of the National Open School Examination, w...
Sri Dipankar Bandopadhyay Vs. Durgapur Chemicals Limited and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. Courts of law are slow to interfere with an administrative order of an employer transferring its employee from one place to the other, if such 2 transfer is one of the terms and conditions of service of the employee concerned. It is only on limited grounds that an order of transfer could be assailed. If it is established that an order of transfer has been passed malafide, a Court may interfere. Interference could also be made if the transfer is totally contrary to statutory rules governing the same and shocks the conscience of the Court. Instances of interference, however, are few and far between in view of acknowledgement of the Courts that the employer is best suited to judge whom to transfer where so as to obtain optimal result. Interference is, by and large, by way of an exception. 2. Here, I am called upon to decide the present writ petition where validity, legality and/or propriety of an order dated March 24, 2007 issued by the Personnel Manager of Durgapur Chemicals Limited, ...
Jaba Mondal Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. The petitioner has approached the Writ Court with the grievances that though she applied to the Municipality and CESC after the private respondents disconnected supply of water and electricity to her, those authorities did not take any step to supply her water and electricity. 2. Counsel for the private respondents submits that since after revoking licence the private respondents filed a suit for the petitioners eviction from the suit premises and the suit is pending, the private respondents disconnected supply of water and electricity to the petitioner. 3. In my opinion, by revoking licence and instituting the suit the private respondents did not acquire a right to say that the petitioner is not entitled to supply of water and electricity. Admittedly, she is an occupier of a portion of the premises, and as such she is entitled to call upon the Municipality and CESC to supply her water and electricity respectively. 4. Whether the licence has been revoked and the private respondents ...
itc Limited. Vs. Godfrey Phillips India Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. The key to the legal issue raised in the defendants application is in theunderstanding of the word invalid as it appears in Section 124 of the TradeMarks Act, 1999.2. There are two parts to the defendants challenge to the continuance of the action. The primary attack is as to the continuation of the suit in this Court on the ground that appropriate proceedings have been launched by the defendant against the plaintiff before the Trade Marks Appellate Board. The defendants application to the Board appears to be on the ground of non-use of the plaintiffs registered mark. No copy of the defendants application before the Appellate Board has been appended to the defendants present application, nor has a copy thereof been otherwise produced in court; but it is not in dispute that the basis for assailing the mark is non-use of the mark for a period of at least five years and three months prior to the making of the defendants application to the Appellate Board. The defendant says a challenge...
Uco Bank and Others. Vs. Narayan Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the UCO Bank, its authorisd officer and its Chief Manager at Buxarah Branch, - the petitioners - have challenged the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2009 whereby the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short the Appellate Tribunal) while allowing the application under section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act for short) had exempted the opposite party, that is the borrower, from making any further deposit for the purpose of entertaining the appeal for disposal on merits on the ground that it is beyond the statutory limit prescribed under the Act. Submission was as in section 18(1) of the Act the legislature has consciously incorporated a condition of predeposit for preferring an appeal which has nothing to do with exercising the power under Section 13 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »