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.
Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jew Thakur and Sree Sree Iswar Manasamata Thakur ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.53 dated July 6, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.222 of 1997 thereby allowing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit being Title Suit No.222 of 1997 praying for declaration that the deeds of gift executed by Promila Sundari Mazumdar in favour of the opposite party are void, fraudulent, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and for further declarations. The opposite party is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement.2. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit till disposal of a title appeal being T. A. No.162 of 1994 and a second appeal being S.A. No.540 of 1991. That application for stay was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revisional application.3. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order s...
Sushma Singh Vs. Rabindra Singh
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioner is the defendant no.3 in Title Suit No.75/2008 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Sealdah. The said suit has been instituted by the opposite party no.1 herein against the petitioner and five other defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in schedules A and B to the plaint. 2. The defendant no.3/petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereafter the Code) read with Section 151 thereof. The grounds on which the learned Civil Judge was urged to reject the plaint are two fold viz. i) the suit is barred by limitation; and ii) the suit is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereafter the Act). 23. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 contested the application under Order VII Rule 11 by filing a written objection. The defendant no.3/petitioner filed a reply thereto. After the d...
Srrak-reipl Jv and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 20, 2010 are seeking the following principal reliefs: a) Declaration to the effect that the selection process of the successful tender is vitiated by irregularity, favoritism, nepotism and thus is void and/or set aside; b) Declaration to the effect that process for selection of successful tenderer is bad and wholly illegal; c) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to process the tender documents afresh and in accordance with law; d) A writ in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondents Coal India Authorities and/or their subordinates from taking any action and/or further action pursuant to and in furtherance of letter of intent issued in favour of the alleged successful tenderer being the private respondent herein; 2. Northern Coalfields Limited (in short NCL) of P.O. Singrauli, Dist-Singrauli (MP) put a notice dated April 2...
Shyam Ballav Safui and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 22, 2010 are seeking a mandamus commanding CESC to pay them compensation for acquisition of their lands particulars whereof have been given in the petition, and not to pay any share thereof to the private respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by acquiring the petitioners lands CESC, using the lands for placing high-tension overhead electric lines, became liable to pay the petitioners compensation. Counsel for CESC submits that he is not in a position to say whether compensation for using the properties has been determined by CESC. He has said that no compensation has been paid to anyone. 3. The lands in question were used (not acquired) by CESC for placing overhead electric lines for transmission of electricity. The provisions of s.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered CESC, a licensee under the provisions of the Act, to use the property in terms of the provisions of s.10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 4...
Quippo Infrastructure Equipment Limited Vs. Srei Infrastructure Financ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. This is an application for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between the petitioner companies and their respective shareholders and for consequential orders. 2. It was seriously contested by the Central Government represented by the Registrar of the Companies and by the Calcutta and Bombay Stock Exchanges. Before dealing with their objections, the facts have to be noted. 3. FACTS:Each of the petitioners took out an application under section 391 of the Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter the Act) asking the court to convene a meeting of the shareholders of each company to consider their approval of the proposed scheme. By orders dated 29th April 2010 and 6th May 2010 in those applications such meetings were directed to be convened according to the Act and the Companies Court (Rules) 1959. Prior to that the respective Boards of Directors of the petitioners passed resolutions on 28th January 2010 approving the scheme. On 26th February 2010 such resolution of the Board was filed with int...
Hiralal Ghosh. Vs. Sukumar Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.65 dated January 10, 2006 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1720 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a title suit being T.S. No.1720 of 2000 before the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs:-a. a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession in respect of the suit premises without any disturbance from the opposite parties and the undated letter issued by the opposite party no.1 is void, illegal and not binding upon the petitionerb. Permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interference with and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises more particularly as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the said suit.3. By a deed of c...
Deoki Bazaz Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is taken out by one Deoki Bazaz @ Deoki Nandan Bazaz and Priti Bazaz praying for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case no. 179 of 2008 arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case no. 37 of 2008 dated 1.5.2008 under Section 498 A/34 I.P.C. , pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Raghunathpur, Purulia.2) Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners makes two fold contention. The first point raised is that neither Raghunathpur P.S. has jurisdiction to investigate into the case nor the learned ACJM Raghunathpur has jurisdiction to take cognizance over the offence alleged so far as the petitioners are concerned. His second point of contention is that if the face value of the averments made in the FIR is considered, it will be found that there is no prima facie case under Section 498 A I.P.C. against the petitioners. The entire process, according to Mr. Chattopadhyay, is illegal, irregular, beyond jurisdiction and is liable to ...
Smt. Sandhya Rani Pakhira and ors. Vs. Jogananda Alias Jagannath Baner ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.5 dated December 3, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Civil Revision Case No.71 of 2003 thereby affirming the order dated February 28, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Seventh Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 1994. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in suit on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. In that suit, the defendants/petitioners herein entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. They filed an application under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for determination of arrears of rent, if any and for instalment. That application was disposed of by an order dated July 5, 1999 directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent as well as current rent. They did not comply with such directions and for that reason, the opposite party filed an ...
Sanwar Ali and anr. Vs. Anjali Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated February 7, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.132 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff instituted a title suit being T. S. No.20 of 2002 praying for a decree for declaration of his tenancy right under the defendant no.6, decree of permanent injunction and a decree for mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, against the defendants. The defendant nos.1 & 2 are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for temporary injunction. The prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter a misc. appeal was preferred against the said order and the learned Additional District Judge allowed the misc. appeal directing both the...
Syed Amirul Islam Vs. Union of India Service Through the Secretary, De ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
S K. Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. This transferred application which has been received on transfer from High Court of Calcutta is taken up today for passing judgment. The applicant filed an application before the Honble Calcutta High Court and the said application, subsequently was transferred to this bench, in view of coming into operation of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The facts as stated in the application are that the petitioner was enrolled in service permanently in the year 1999. On 03-09-2007, the petitioner received show-cause notice from the authorities asking him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated for contracting plural marriage on the basis of alleged complaint made by one Jasmine, who was his first wife. The said notice was duly replied vide letter dt. 11-09-2007 stating and explaining his second marriage by way of enclosing all relevant documents proving the dissolution of first marriage, and under the circumstances, he was compelled to...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »