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.
M/S. Honeypath Construction and ors. Vs. Kishore Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.99 dated August 26, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Barasat, District North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.3 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a Title Suit No.3 of 1999 for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein in respect of the property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The suit was at the stage of recording evidence and in that suit, the plaintiff no.1 deposed on behalf of all the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff no.3 tendered evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for marking a copy of a document dated December 13, 1997 as exhibit as secondary evidence. The prayer for adducing evide...
Calcutta Metropolitan Group Limited. Vs. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated March 21, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fifth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.99 of 2006 thereby allowing four petitions for addition of parties. The CAN applications being nos.6011 of 2009 and 5833 of 2009 are also taken up for hearing. The short fact is that the opposite party nos.1 & 2 are the co-owners of the apartment no.9C1 on the 9th Floor of Bay Residential Tower at Hiland Park. The petitioner is the developer of the same Hiland Park apartments. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 instituted a Title Suit No.99 of 2006 for declaration, permanent injunction, recovery of compensation, etc. The petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and the said suit is at the stage of examination of the P.Ws. At that time, two applications for addition of parties were filed one by opposite party nos.15 to 19 and the other by the opposite party nos.20 to...
Gopal Chandra MannA. Vs. Sridam Haldar and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of a petitioner and is directed against the order dated August 16, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.83 of 2009.2. The petitioner herein instituted an Other Suit No.53 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah praying for a decree of declaration of partition, injunction, etc. and the said suit is still pending for disposal. The plaintiff/petitioner has claimed that he had purchased 1 decimal of land under plot no.4918 at Mouza- Panchla, District Howrah along with a shop room and still in possession from the date of purchase and the said shop room is let out to the opposite party no.2 with regard to the selfsame property, the opposite party no.1, namely Sridam Halder, instituted a Title Suit No.67 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah against the tenant, Susanta Saha, praying for a decree of khas possession of the...
Kallu Babu Lalchand. Vs. Smt. Lalmuni Devi Kharwar.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.18 dated August 28, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.57 of 2007 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.2. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for ejectment and recovery of possession on the ground of default. He is a member of Hindu undivided family. The defendant / opposite party is contesting the said suit. He filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff contended that the rents deposited by the defendant is in the personal name of the Kallu Babu Lalchand and as such the deposits are invalid. So, the orders impugned relating to disposal of application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 should be sustained. Being aggrieved by the order on the said petition, this application has been...
Major Partha Pratim DuttA. Vs. Mrs. Arundhati DuttA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against the order no.3 dated February 26, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge-in-Charge, Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009.2. The husband filed the said suit for a decree of divorce against the opposite party before the learned Family Judge at Pune under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. That suit was subsequently transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta and renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009. At present, the petitioner is posted at the college of Military Engineering, Pune and for that reason, he filed the said suit at Pune. Since, it was difficult for the opposite party to attend the Court at Pune, she filed an application before the Honble Apex Court for transfer and accordingly, the said suit was transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta. The petitioner contends that it is very difficult for him to leave from his office on a regular basis to attend the C...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Baldeo Shaw
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-03-2011
1) This is an appeal against an order dated 31.12.1992 of acquittal passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, 4th Court Calcutta in I/1983. The respondent herein Baldeo Shaw who was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) (2) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act was found not guilty by the learned Trial Court and acquitted from the charge. The appellant herein Corporation of Calcutta being dissatisfied with that order of acquittal has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned Magistrate erred in providing the respondent with protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Alteration Act.2) The brief fact of the case is that the Criminal action against the respondent was started under Section 16(1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the basis of a complaint lodged by one B. K. Bhowmik, Food Inspector. It was alleged that on 26.8.1982, at about 1.30 hours, Mr. Bhowmik had been to the grocery shop of the respondent and seized Mona brand spice (chili powde...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›