Kolkata Court January 2011 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.
Jayanta Lamp Industries Private Limited. Vs. Orient Paper and Industri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. The suit is on account of alleged passing-off by the defendant of Orient electric lamps as those of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark Orient in respect of electric lamps under Class 11, the plaintiff has clarified that the suit is not one for infringement. The plaintiff says that it manufactures and markets lamps of various kinds and claims that the word mark Orient has been exclusively associated with the plaintiff for more than twenty years. The plaintiff has set out its turn-over figures from the year 1990-91 and shows that the annual sales of the plaintiff has jumped from about Rs.60 lakh in the year 1990-91 to Rs.6.20 crore in the year 2008-09. The expenses incurred by the plaintiff for advertising its Orient brand of lamps are not equally impressive. In 1990-91 the advertisement expenses were about Rs.2.52 lakh and in 2008-09 the plaintiff incurred expenses of about Rs.1.82 lakh on such count. In between, there were several years...
Bhupendra Yadav Vs. Laxmi Devi Shaw and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated January 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No.387 of 1983.2. The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted the said suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, as described in the schedule of the plaint against the defendant/petitioner herein on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. The defendant/petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the materials allegations raised in the plaint amongst other grounds. The defendant has contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the suit is bad for defect of parties. Thereafter, the opposite party no.10 has been added as party to the suit in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and this person claims as owner of the premises in suit. By the impugned order, the ...
Maniklal Das. Vs. Debendranath Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.2 and is directed against the order no.150 dated September 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.11 of 1986.2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.11 of 1986 against the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 to 5 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Medinipur praying for a decree of declaration and other reliefs. The defendant no.2 entered appearance in the said suit and he is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint. The suit proceeded accordingly. Evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has been closed. Thereafter, the D.W.1 was examined and discharged. At that stage, on March 5, 2008, the defendant no.2 filed an applicati...
Rabindra Nath Sarkar. Vs. Dilip Kumar Saha Karmakar.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated May 11, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.510 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit for ejectment on the ground of default against the petitioner and also on other grounds. The defendant/petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said suit. He was required to deposit monthly rent as per order of the Court. But, he failed to deposit rent since November, 2007. He filed an application for permission to deposit rent from November, 2007 onwards along with statutory interest thereon. That application was rejected by the impugned order. At the same time, the application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was also allowed. Being aggrieved, this application has been...
Smt. Rama Bose and ors. Vs. Kartick Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated January 10, 2011 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.3356 of 2010. Though two matters, that is, injunction matter and appointment of a survey passed commissioner for holding local investigation are the subject matters of the impugned order, the present application has been filed in respect of the disposal of the application for local investigation filed by the plaintiffs. So, I shall consider the relevant portion of the order relating to disposal of the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. in the impugned order.2. The plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.3356 of 2010 praying for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The defendants/opposite parties herein have entered appearance in the suit and they are contesting the same by filing a writte...
Rakhi Mukherjee (Nee Banerjee). Vs. Subhankar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the wife/petitioner herein and is directed against the order no.33 dated November 3, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No.2525 of 2006 against the petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Honble Supreme Court praying, inter alia, for transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of District Judge, Burdwan. That application was allowed resulting in transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court,...
Suresh Halder. Vs. Smt. Hasi Rani Deb.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated August 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.115 of 1997 thereby rejecting an application for repair of the premises in suit.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being T. S. No.115 of 1997 against the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and he is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the materials allegations. He filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for repairing the premises in suit stating, inter alia, that the property is in damaged condition and the plaintiff has also admitted that the property is in damaged condition and so he has prayed for repair of the same at his own cost. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. Now...
Jagat Taran Chakraborty. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The appellant herein Jagat Taran Chakraborty, husband of the deceased of 92, Tollyguange Road, Kolkata -33 was tried by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (south) in Sessions Trial No. 2 (11) of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22.04.02, the appellant/accused was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only) i/d to suffer further R.I. for six months as per order dated 23.04.02. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellant preferred the present appeal.Facts2. Rina Chakraborty, an educated young house wife, aged 25 years succumbed to her burn injuries at M.R. Bangur Hospital at 11 PM on 31.12.99 leaving behind her daughter Romita @ Mumpi, aged about 2 years. She was married to the appellant on 21.04.95. It was a love marriage. In November 1998 a maintenance case...
Basantika Memorial Education Society and anr. Vs. the Chief General Ma ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The first petitioner is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It opened more than one account with the State Bank of India. Persons authorised by its previous governing body were operating the accounts. 2. After formation of new governing body on August 1, 2010 such body submitted annual and other returns to the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal on August 24, 2010. Persons authorised by it requested the bank to permit them to operate all the accounts of the society. The bank refused to permit them to operate as many as seven accounts. 3. In response to repeated request letters of the society the bank wrote a letter dated October 27, 2010 advising the President of the new governing body of the society as follows: 1) Two of the previous signatories have disputed substitution of the new signatories. The documents produced by them bear enough evidence for dispute and requires to be examined by our law departmen...
Managing Director, Xenitis Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Chakrabor ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S. C. Case No.24/FA/08. The opposite party no.1 purchased a laptop at a cost of Rs.38,600/- for personal use from the opposite party no.2. But, that laptop started malfunctioning and all the major components thereof, namely, mother board, power section, battery, hinghe, etc. showed major defects within the period of warranty. For that reason, the complainant / opposite party no.1 had to deposit the said laptop with the opposite party no.2 four times within one year and on each occasion the repairing took about a month or more. Thus, the complainant / opposite party no.1 was able to use the said laptop for about 8 months within the warranty period. So, the complainant lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan being DF Case No.15 of 2007. That complaint case...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »