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.
Associated Rubber Works and anr. Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated August 25, 2010 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued by directing the Respondents being Respondent Nos 2 and 3 to restore supply upon compliance of all formalities as per representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure P3). 2. Alleging unauthorised use of electricity, supply of electricity was disconnected on July 12, 2004. The assessing officer of CESC made an order of provisional assessment dated July 12, 2004 under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. The supply was disconnected once again on February 8, 2006 when an inspecting team detected that the consumer illegally reconnected the supply that had been disconnected on July 12, 2004. The assessing officer made an order of provisional assessment dated February 8, 2006, and then after hearing the authorised representative of the consumer on February 10, 2006 he made an order of final assessment dated February 20, 200...
Adhunik Ispat Limited. Vs. Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. The plaintiff has applied for judgement on admission primarily on the basis of the ledger accounts for the period of April 1, 2009 to July 24, 2009 as acknowledged by the defendant by affixing its rubber-stamp thereto on August 12, 2009.2. The plaintiff claims to have supplied TMT bars to the defendants Faridabad construction site. The plaintiff has relied on the two purchase orders issued by the defendant and the various challan-cum-invoices that the plaintiff raised which the defendant received without any protest. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.1,55,14,191.66 of which a sum of Rs.1,44,81,432.66 was apparently admitted by the defendant to be due to the plaintiff in the ledger accounts. The remaining sum is claimed on the basis of two cheques issued by the defendant which were dishonoured upon presentation in view of the stop-payment instructions issued by the defendant to its bank.3. There are several anomalies in the petition which have been pointed out by the defendant. But mo...
Smt. Barnali Das (Nee Sinha Roy) Vs. Santosh Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the wife/respondent and is directed against the order no.86 dated August 30, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.79 of 2009 thereby allowing an application for enhancement of alimony in part. The husband/opposite party instituted the said matrimonial suit for divorce and the wife/petitioner herein is contesting the said matrimonial suit. The wife also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M.R. Case No.451 of 1992 and as per order of the learned Magistrate, the husband/opposite party herein has been paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In 2000, the wife was granted alimony at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, the wife filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the income of her husband had been increased from 6,000/- per month to Rs.20,00/...
Amaresh Chandra BerA. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Initially, the appellant had opted on 26th June, 1990 for Contributory Provident Fund under the DCRB scheme. Subsequently, he revised such option on 16th January, 1992 and opted for the Government Provident Fund. This would be evident from the document available at page 28 of the paper book which is a communication by the Teacher-in-Charge addressed to the concerned District Inspector of School.2. Since the position has fallen foul before the Authorities, he was posed to the fore of the Writ Court at the first instance. This saw an order passed by an Honble Single Judge on 22nd February, 2007 in connection with W.P. 11396 (W) of 1999 whereby the Honble Single Judge referred the entire issue for decision before the Secretary, Education Department. It would be pertinent to note that there was a finding by the Honble Single Judge in paragraph 4 of His Lordships order which reads as under:-But it appears from annexure p-2, page-14 to the supplementary affidavit to the writ application t...
Mazrul Haque Vs. Union of India Service Through Ministry of Defence an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
LT Gen K P D Samanta, Member (Administrative) 1. The Petitioner, Majrul Haque, was enrolled in the MAHAR REGIMENT of the Indian Army on 14th January, 2002, but was discharged being medically invalidated on 26th May, 2002 from the Mahar Regimental Training Centre at Saugor, where he was pursuing his recruit training. Being aggrieved by the ibid decision of the authorities, he filed a Writ Petition (WP 2179(W)/2004) with Calcutta High Court on 10th February, 2004. Upon constitution of AFT Bench, it was transferred to the AFT on 29th March, 2010. 2. The petitioner submits in his application that he had applied for enrolment as part of Unit Headquarters (UHQ) quota in Mahar Regimental Centre on 1.11.2010 in the trade of Soldier General Duty (GD). After going through due process of recruitment including medical test, he was provisionally selected on 8.11.20001 (Paragraph- 3 and Annexure P-1 of the Petition). He also underwent a medical test at the Centre MI Room as evident from fitness ce...
Pradip Bandyopadhyay. Vs. Nityananda Bandyopadhyay.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.31 dated August 18, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Ranaghat in Title Suit No.20 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application for local inspection filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted the said title suit no.20 of 2000 for declaration and injunction. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations contained in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of hearing argument after close of evidence on behalf of both the sides. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application for holding local inspection on the points as mentioned in the application appearing as annexure A to the application. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be susta...
Asha Devi Rai and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated January 4, 2011 are questioning the things stated in a letter (at p.57) of the Sr. Divl. Comml. Manager/ HWH of the Eastern Railway dated November 23, 2010. 2. The relevant parts of the letter are quoted below: Your letter dated 01.09.10 has been examined at this end. This is to inform you that the catering unit at Memari station manned by M/S Pudina Rai & Sons has been closed vide this office letter no. COM/V-6/63/MYM dtd. 04.01.2008. You are free to participate in the process for fresh allotment, as and when the necessary notification for catering unit at Memari Station is issued. 3. The father-in-law of the first petitioner and grand father of the second and third petitioners was appointed as a vending contractor at Memari railway station of the Eastern Railway in 1963 for selling Tea Biscuits, Pan, Biri, Cigarettes, Matches, Muri and Chura. After his death the second petitioner was running the business on the basis of the vending ...
Smt. Krishna Das Vs. Santana Modak and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dated August 19, 2010 is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.138 of 2000, pending on the file of the 1st Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chinsurah, Hooghly. The suit is for specific performance of a contract and injunction. The defendants in the suit are contesting it by filing written statement.2. The stage for recording evidence having reached, the petitioner filed a petition dated June 2, 2010 under Order 26 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) read with section 151 thereof. On the ground of her illness, the petitioner prayed before the Trial Court for appointment of a learned advocate as commissioner to record her oral evidence. 3. The petition was taken up for consideration by the Trial Court on July 6, 2010. The plea of the petitioner that she was ill and that it is practically impossible for her to remain personally present in Court and depose before it was disbelieved. The pet...
Headmaster, Asansol Chowalal Madhyamik Vidyalaya and anr. Vs. Ram Nare ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The opposite party is eligible to be inducted in the Managing Committee of Asansol Chowalal Madhyamik Vidyalaya (hereafter the school) in the capacity of a life member. He instituted a suit, registered as Title Suit no.59/2010, in the 1st Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at 2Asansol, Burdwan for declaration and injunction on the ground that election of the candidate in the category of person interested in education for induction in the Managing Committee of the school is defective. The relief claimed in the suit reads as follows : a) for declaration that the election process conducted by the current Managing Committee of the Asansol Chowalal Madhyamic Vidyala is illegal wrongful and ulterires as the same has been conducted is gross violation of rules framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. b) for permanent injunction restraining the present managing committee to reconstitute the Managing Committee without the process of law. c) for all cost of the su...
Adu Mirja Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated September 15, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to restore his service through a new transformer, since the transformer through which he was getting supply of electricity for operating his lawfully installed submersible pump was stolen on May 8, 2010. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of regs.9 and 15 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 the licensee is liable to restore the service at once and pay compensation for its failure to restore the service within the statutory period. 3. Counsel for the licensee has submitted as follows. On the basis of information of the theft supplied by the petitioner the Station Manager, Bethuadahari Gr.E/S in Nadia lodged an FIR with the Nakashipara police station in Nadia on May 10, 2010. The licensee may not be saddled with the liability of compens...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »