Kolkata Court February 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 Kaypee Enterprise. Vs. Sri Santosh Kumar Saraogi and Another.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. This Review Application is a direction against the order dated July 26, 2010 passed by this Honble Bench in C.O. No. 2348 of 2009 thereby disposing of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff O.P.s herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 2838 of 2008 against the O.P.s for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant and its proprietress Smt. Sushila Dalmia and other members of her family are entitled to use and enjoy the tenanted premises as described in the schedule of the plaint.3. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. In that suit an order of status quo was granted. Thereafter, upon contested hearing the application was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property.4. During pendency of the suit the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the concerned O/C to see that the o...
Tanweer Hanif. Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. The Court :- The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 21, 2011 has two grievances: (i) in spite of his request to remove the defect in the meter, CESC has failed and neglected to remove the defect; (ii) though in view of the provisions of s.126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the assessing officer of CESC could not make any order of final assessment in the s.126 proceedings initiated in 2004, a designated officer issued a notice dated January 14, 2011 asking him to appear before the assessing officer for participating in the final assessment proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once request was made to remove the defect in the meter, CESC incurred the obligation to remove the defect. As to the final assessment proceedings, her submission is that since the order of final assessment was not made within the period mentioned in sub-s.(3) of s.126, the assessing officer of CESC is not competent to proceed with the s.126 proceedings initiated in 2004 for...
Radhe Shyam Saraf (Huf) and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. G.A 2485 of 2009 and G.A 2486 of 2009 have been filed for return of the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint not 2 disclosing any cause of action. Such applications have been filed in 2009 i.e. much after the filing of the application filed under Chapter XIIIA. In fact the applications have been filed after the hearing had commenced and the same is an afterthought and belated. The only reason given for the delayed filing is miscommunication between the defendant and its erstwhile advocate, who has been changed only for the purposes of filing the said applications. Except for the said bald explanation, backed by no particulars, no other explanation is forthcoming for the said delay. 2. As held in various decisions that the banks affairs are looked after by its officers for whose delay the bank should not be penalised will not come to the defendants aid as the bank has a legal department which is headed by a law officer who is equipped to advice the Ba...
Sri Baijanath Prasad Vs.The Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank and ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 21, 2010 is questioning a notice dated November 26, 2010 issued by the authorised officer of Allahabad Bank under s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. By the notice the petitioner was called upon to hand over possession of the secured assets. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. By a lawyers notice dated November 3, 2010 (at p.20) the petitioner informed the Deputy Manager of the bank that he never received any notice under s.13(2) or s.13(4) of the Act. 3. Instead of responding to the notice, the authorised officer of the bank wrongfully issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the secured assets. Since the petitioner is contending that the action has been taken in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, he is entitled to approach the High Court under art.226. 4. Counsel for the ban...
Sri Gangaram RanA. Vs. Smt. Kalpana RanA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against the order No. 225 dated 24.3.2008 passed by Sri M. Karmakar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Arambagh in Misc. Case No. 17 of 86 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Arambagh allowed the petition of the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance allowance under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code with direction to the opposite party to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month to the applicant and Rs. 300/- per month to her child (son) with effect from the date of filing of the petition on 02.3.92. 2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 in the year 1391 B.S. and out of their wedlock the opposite party No.2 was born. The Opposite party No.1 filed an applicati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›