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.
Adya Pipes Private Limited. Vs. Central Bank of India and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-09-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the applicant/respondent and is directed against the judgment and order dated February 4, 2011 passed by the Honble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.114 of 2010 thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the order impugned therein being the order dated November 30, 2010 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Kolkata in SA/673/2010.2. The short fact is that the applicant availed several kinds of credit facilities from the bank/opposite party herein but it did not make repayment as per terms and conditions for obtaining the credit facilities. As a result, the dues from the applicants to the bank/opposite party herein arose to the amount of Rs.9,48,66,124.32 paise as on February 15, 2010. Under the circumstances, the bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth shall be referred to as the SARFEASI Act of 2...
Jayanti Mallick Vs. the Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 24, 2009 (sic) is questioning a sale certificate dated April 7, 2010 (at p.17) issued by the authorised officer of Punjab National Bank. 2. After issuing a notice under s.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the authorised officer of the bank took measure under s.13(4) with respect to possession of the property. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner lodged an appeal with the Debts Recovery Tribunal under s.17. By an order dated March 23, 2009 (at p.16) the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner. 3. Then the petitioner filed M.A. No.21 of 2009 (para.8) for restoration of the appeal to file. During pendency of the restoration application the authorised officer of the bank took steps for sale of the property and finally issued the impugned sale certificate. M.A. No.21 of 2009 is still pending before the Tribunal. 4. Counsel for the petitioner...
Mohammad Hanif. Vs. Sk. Afsar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the respondent and is directed against the order no.2 dated January 15, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Civil Revision Case No.137 of 2007 and subsequent orders thereon. The short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.133 of 1996 for declaration and injunction against the opposite party nos.1 & 2 together with plaintiffs mother, Mst. Farzennassa, since deceased. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 are contesting the said suit by filing a joint written statement. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and the opposite party nos.1 & 2 contested the said application. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge [learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Hooghly] has disposed of the said application for temporary injunction by an order dated August 14, 2003. Being aggrieved, a misc. appeal was preferred by the defendant. That matter is pending.2. Subsequently, an a...
Dipali Rani Swarnakar Vs. Md. Yeasin
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated November 17, 2006 as modified by the order dated December 21, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Barasat, District North 24 Parganas in R.C. Fair Case No.8 of 2004/97. The short fact is that the opposite party herein filed an application under Section 17(4B) read with Section 5(7) and 5(8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for determination of the fair rent of the premises in the application as described therein. The petitioner herein was paying regular rent to the opposite party and the rent was increased from Rs.71/- to Rs.80/-, then to Rs.100/- and lastly to Rs.125/- per month. On two occasions earlier in 1998 and 2003, the petitioner had to file two applications under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 to deposit rents before the rent controller since the opposite party refused to accept the same. The said applications were allowed in both the occasions and as such, the petitioner has been depo...
Subimal Chakraborty. Vs. Surjya Kumar Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order no.40 dated May 31, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Misc. Case No.3 of 2004 arising out the judgment and ex parte decree by order no.172 dated November 24, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.22 of 1981.2. The petitioner instituted the Title Suit being T. S. No.22 of 1981 against the defendants/opposite party nos.5 to 9 for declaration and recovery of possession and also for injunction. In that suit, the defendants/opposite party nos.5 to 9 appeared and the defendant nos.6 and 7 contested the said suit by filing their respect written statements denying the contentions made out in the plaint. The defendants did not take any steps subsequently. As a result, the suit was decreed ex parte on November 24, 2003. While the petitioner was in possession, on December 7, 2003, the defendant nos.1 to 4...
Ali Akbar Mondal and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. In a sessions trial held before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaon, the appellants being convicted under Sections 302/34 as well as under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal code and thereunder sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively and to pay fine with default clause, have preferred this appeal.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell run as follows :- On March 27, 2006 at about 21 hours while the deceased Khagen Mondal was sitting in the Verandah of his house with his co-villagers, viz., Joydeb Goldar, Monimala Goldar, Tapasi Goldar and his wife Sumitra Mondal, the appellant in a body came there and started indiscriminately hurling bombs towards them. During such indiscriminate hurling of bombs, one bomb hit Khagen Mondal and his head was blown out and Khagen died instantaneously at the spot, while two others, viz., Monimala Goldar and her daughter Tapasi Goldar, also received bomb burst injuries.3. Following the afor...
Satyabrata Chakraborti Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. The petitioner in both these petitions, being W.P. 17148(W) of 2006 and W.P. 4706(W) of 2007 is the manager and secretary of a school, being Atreyee English Medium School and he primarily seeks to avoid coverage of the said school from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (the Act in short). The school in question is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and was established in the year 1984. The grounds on which the petitioner, representing the management of the school wants to be excluded from the coverage of the Act is that the majority of their employees are opposing entry into the statutory provident scheme as according to them, the benefits they are getting at present from the school is superior to the benefits granted under the statutory scheme. It has also been contended that in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, the provisions of the statute is not applicable to the said institute, ...
Enkon Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of the writ-petitioners and is directed against an order dated August 16, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ-application on the ground that the writ-petitioner No.1 by participating in the process of tender waived its alleged accrued right, for enforcement of which, the writ-application was filed.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with this Mandamus-Appeal.3. The following facts have been established from the materials placed before us by the parties:1) The appellant No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the appellant No.2 is one of its directors. The Respondent No.1 is the State of West Bengal represented by the Respondent No.2 who is the Principal Secretary, the Department of Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal, and the Respondent No.3 is the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, a body corporate constitute...
Smt. Shrabani Mondal (Pal) Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writpetitioner and is directed against an order dated 11th August, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ2 application filed by the appellant thereby holding that the writ-petitioner was not entitled to get any relief as she had no requisite qualification of being empanelled as a candidate under the exempted category because the existing Rules do not prescribe that a former census worker for the year 2001 should come under the said category.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.3. The appellant before us filed a writ-application, being W.P. No.15405 (W) of 2010, out of which the present Mandamus-Appeal arises, thereby praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the result of the writ-petitioner as a successful candidate in the exempted category should not be published, for issue of appointment...
Ashis Kumar Maity and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. The nine petitioners in this art.226 petition dated April 23, 2010 are seeking the following principal relief: a) a writ in the nature of mandamous, commanding the respondent authority to take steps for removal of installed meter from the structure stated herein after. 2. The petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of one Ajodhya Nath Maity submitted a representation dated August 14, 2006 describing it as: An appeal for Surrender the Meter No.-3709498 and Present Additional Meter No.-0388696 & Consumer No.-51178036004 at Mouza-Sodepure, J.L. No.-8, Touzi No.- 194, R.S. Dag No.-273, R.S. Khatian No.- 453/2, Holding No.-46 and Ward No.-13 under Panihati Municipality at 147, Nilgunj Road, Sodepur, 24-Parganas (North). 3. By the representation the petitioners requested the District Engineer, North Suburban Division of CESC to accept their decision to surrender the two meters. Alleging that CESC did not accept their offer to surrender the meters, they brought this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »