Court : Kolkata
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Niranjan Mandal son of Anil Mandal made statement before the police at about 10:55 p.m. on August 4, 1983 at Baruipur Hospital that he had left the appellant, above named, attacked him on the road with a knife on the left side of his belly. He was removed to Baruipur Hospital with profuse bleeding. He was brought to the Hospital by the Rickshaw of Madan Naskar, the brother of Swapan Naskar, the appellant above named. The doctors at Baruipur Hospital recommended him for Calcutta Hospital considering his precarious condition. He was removed to N.R.S. Hospital at Sealdah where he succumbed to injury.2. The police initially acted on the basis of the complaint made by Niranjan at Baruipur Hospital in presence of Dr. Sampurna Ghosh who treated her at the said Hospital. The police arrested Swapan and charged him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Fact reveals, in the past Niranjan assaulted Swapan's mother. He was also compelled to pay fine for such assault...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The lessors have challenged an award passed by a departmental arbitrator to the extent that the arbitrator declined a claim for rent of four months. The lessors say, in the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that the arbitrator acted in derogation in terms of the contract and the award, to the extent challenged, is not in accordance with the substantive law of the land.2. Under an agreement of December 29, 2000, the petitioners demised unto the Government of India an area of 9400 sq. ft. on the ninth floor of premises No. 44, Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016. The Controller of Patents used the premises as his office. The agreement provided for enhancement of rent on a periodic basis. The petitioners carried two major heads of claim to the reference. The petitioners sought the enhanced rate for a particular period which the arbitrator allowed. The arbitrator also allowed interest on the unpaid enhanced rate. The arbi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner in assailing the award in the present proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is that notwithstanding the arbitration agreement obliging the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award no reasons have, in fact, been furnished by the arbitrator in justification of the award.2. The petitioner is a contractor who was awarded a work order following a notice inviting tender and the petitioner's offer thereupon. The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 16 of the document entitled 'Terms and Conditions of the Contract.' There is no dispute that the last sentence of the clause stipulated that the arbitrator 'shall give reasons for the award.'3. In the rather short award, the arbitrator has narrated in the first three paragraphs before heading into the several items of claim that he had been appointed arbitrator, that pleadings had been filed by the parties, that he had heard the par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a common order being No. 149 dated 10th September, 2009 by which two different applications filed by the plaintiff were rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest. In one of such applications, the plaintiff prayed for amendment of his plaint. In the other application the plaintiff prayed for addition of the legal heirs and legal representatives of proforma defendant No. 4 against whom the suit abated as will appear from the order recording abatement on 25.2.2005.2. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, the instant application has been filed before this Court by the plaintiff/petitioner.3. Heard Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chakroborty, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.4. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner has applied under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a request for necessary measures to be taken for constituting an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes covered by the arbitration agreement that the petitioner sets up. The respondent has denied the existence of the arbitration agreement.2. There is no dispute that following a notice inviting tender and the petitioner's offer thereupon, a work order was issued in favour of the petitioner for handling and despatch of iron ore fines from Thakurani/Barbil siding to the ports of Paradip, Haldia and Gopalpur by rail and by road. The work included port handling, stacking and stevedoring operations. The work order contemplated a formal agreement being executed. The work order was to remain valid for the period upto December, 2008 with a provision for extension thereof based on the performance of the petitioner. The performance was to be reviewed every three mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2007 passed the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North) in Title Appeal No. 5 of 2007, affirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah in T.S. No. 40 of 2001.2. The learned Trial Judge held that the defendant is admittedly a defaulter in payment of rent since August, 2000 and since he has neither complied with the provision of Section 17(1) nor he has complied with the provision of Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, he is not entitled to get any protection under Section 17(4) of the said Act. Accordingly, an eviction decree was passed against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent.3. The defendant was aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he preferred an appeal before the learned Appeal Court. The learned Appeal Court also approve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. The writ petitioner, Taj Mohammed runs a guest house called Taj Guest House at situated on the ground floor of this premises. The writ petitioner claims to be a tenant of this ground floor under the respondent No. 6, Kamal Hamid. He says he pays a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- to Kamal has not appeared.2. His claim is that commercial water connection to the portion of the premises he occupies (for short 'Taj Guest House') be granted. The respondent, Calcutta Municipal Corporation refuses to grant such connection.RIVAL CONTENTIONS 3. Mr. Alok Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions:(a) The premises always had a domestic connection. Extra charge on account of excess water supply for Taj Guest House had been raised by the said corporation and paid.(b) He has shown me amongst other sections, Section 239 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and submits that a separate water supply for non-domestic purposes can be granted.(c) As a t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Basanta Roy was residing at the material time in a Kachha house within the Police Station of Bagnun in the District of Howrah along with his family members being his wife Sandha Roy, his son Sambhu and married daughter, the victim and her minor child aged about one and half years. On February 12, 2004 Basanta and Sambhu were sleeping on the outside room whereas Sandha and the victim along with her child were sleeping in the inner room. At about 02:30 / 03:00 a.m. when they were in deep sleep they certainly woke up hearing a sound of repeated knocking on the wall made of bamboo sticks. Initially they did not respond. Sandha tried to put resistance by holding the door. Such resistance failed. Three persons kicked and broke open the door and entered the room having torch light in their hand. They were Sabuj Khandakar, Kalo Khan and Akkas Khan. The accused belonged to Kachari Para an adjacent locality. Sabuj and Kalo had sword in their hand. Sabuj threatened the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioners initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the WBPT Act) before the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Court of Small Causes at Calcutta on December 8, 2004 for recovery of possession of the premises in question from the respondent No. 1, being the defendant therein. The petitioners' claim was allowed and order for recovery of possession was passed on May 15, 2006. Proceedings travelled upto the Supreme Court. The order for recovery of possession survived with certain modifications whereafter it was put into execution. By order dated March 17, 2009, the learned Judge dismissed the execution case relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tapas Biswas v. Shyama Prosad Ghoshal 2009 (1) CHN 183. The learned Judge held as follows:Since the Hon'ble High Court held that Presidency Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction and the decree passed by the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Md. Abdul Ghani, J.1. The present first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated 21st October, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 3142 of 2009.2. It would appear that the plaintiffs/appellants after filing the aforesaid title suit for specific performance of contract, declaration and injunction sought for an ad interim order of injunction upon filing an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The record speaks that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants as also considering the materials placed before him was pleased to refuse the prayer for ad interim order of injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie case and also for the reason that agreement has not been p...
Tag this Judgment!