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.
Dilip Kumar MahapatrA. Vs. Smt. Bela Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.395 dated December 7, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Medinipur in Title Suit No.67 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application filed by the coplaintiff/ defendant no.2.2. The short fact is that one Anil Chandra Mahapatra instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.120 of 1964 before the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, First Court at Midnapore for partition of the suit properties as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The suit was decreed in the preliminary form in terms of the solenama of June 3, 1969. Thereafter, one Advocate commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report. The final decree for partition was passed on November 3, 1971. The stamp duty was submitted on September 18, 1971 and the final decree was engrossed on the stamp paper on November 3, 1971. The learned commissioner assessed the valuation of the suit property at Rs.60,000/- and he allotted the share to the four co-owners equally having the v...
Alok Kumar Das and Orthers Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Only question involved in this litigation is whether an offence said to have been committed under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code could be tried by the Special Judge although the accused was not a government employee.2. The petitioners were engaged by UCO Bank for collection of deposits from the village investors as agents. The Bank lodged a complaint that they committed grave illegality by misappropriation of the deposits by not depositing the sums to the til of the Bank. The petitioner earlier moved this Court on two occasions on the identical issue. In each of the situations the learned Judges of this Court observed that the petitioners should be at liberty to raise such point at the time of trial. The petitioners thereafter approached the learned Special Judge with the identical plea and prayed for their discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Special Judge rejected the contentions by holding that it was a case of Criminal misappropriation an...
Sk. Md. YeasIn Ali Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. The Court: In view of the case stated in para.4 of the application for restoration, the application is allowed. The art.226 petition that was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner is restored to file. 2. Since I have determination to take up the petition for admission hearing, I have invited counsel for the parties to argue their respective cases and they have argued. 3. The petitioner is seeking a mandamus commanding the licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 to give him supply of electricity for operating a submersible pump. 4. Counsel submits that on the strength of the document at p.23 the petitioner is entitled to operate the submersible pump in question. 5. In view of the provisions of the West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management, Control and Regulation) Act, 2005 the petitioner cannot operate any pump without obtaining a permit or a certificate of registration, as the case may be, from the District Level Authority concerned. 6. The document at p.23, a clearan...
Contai Co-operative Bank Limited. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Consumer Protection Act has no application to Co-operative Societies and all disputes relating to a Co-operative Society be decided under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not to give effect to the order dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Consumer Forum), Paschim Medinipore, an execution case no.9 of 2009. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was lodged by the private respondent against the petitioner with the Consumer Forum for adjustment of sums. A written statement was filed by the petitioner wherein the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum was questioned. An order was passed on 12th November, 2008 by which it was held that the complainant was a consumer of the petitioner Co-operative Bank and, therefore, was entitled to maintain the said dispute case. 3. From the order a revisional application was ...
Smt. Mamata at Mala Bhandari. Vs. Sri Sanjib Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order dated July 16, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.74 of 1994. By the said application, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated February 10, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge. The plaintiffs/opposite party nos.1 to 6 instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.74 of 1994 against the petitioner being the defendant no.2 along with other opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 being the defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 therein for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In that suit, the defendant is contesting by filing a written statement. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff came up with an application for addition of party. Another application was also filed by him for amendment of the plaint. Both the petitions were allowed by the learned Trial Judge by ...
Nikhil Kumar Bhaumik. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1.The petitioner was an Organizing Teacher of Andharia Jatiya Vidyapith Junior High School in the District of Midnapore. Initially his appointment as Organizing Teacher of the said school was approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Tamluk, with effect from 7th March, 1995 for a limited period till 31st December, 1995. While approving the petitioners appointment as an Organizing Teacher of the said school, the petitioner was requested to improve his qualification within three years, if he wants to be appointed as Headmaster of the said school, as per rule. Subsequently, the said approval order was partially modified and the service of the petitioner as Teacher-in-Charge of the said school was approved by the concerned District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Tamluk, with effect from 1st January, 1986 in terms of the order passed by this Honble Court on 9th Mach, 1999 in W.P. No. 268 of 1999. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been initiated by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings bearing B.G.R. case No. 353 of 2009 pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, and the corresponding proceeding of Jadavpore Police Station case No. 40 dated 21.01.2009 under Sections 341/323/ 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at Calcutta, is being represented by Sri Sachin Kumar Gupta, Deputy Manager (Legal). Jadavpore Police Station case No. 40 dated 21.01.2009 has been registered for investigation on the basis of a letter of complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 with the Inspector-in-charge of Jadavpore Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code by unknown persons. It has been alleged the...
Gautam Mitra and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. The Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents, the Respondent No. 2 (the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata), in particular, to show cause as to why the cancellation of the NTPC Examinations, 1989 which was held for recruitment of Category-C staff in the South-eastern Railway and/or Chittaranjan Locomotive Works against Employment Notice No. 1 of 1989, should not be declared as illegal/having no effect upon the results of the said examination which were published in Aajkal Patrika, (Annexure-P1). They have also prayed for an Order restraining the Respondents not to hold any NTPC examinations for recruitment of any Trainee Commercial Clerk, Accounts Clerk Grade-II, Office Clerk Grade-II, Ticket Collector and Trains Clerk for the Southeastern Railway/Chittaranjan Locomotive Works till finalisation of the Writ Petition. 2. It appears that the Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Railway Recruitm...
Gopal Chandra Das. Vs. Ranjit Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.118 dated July 17, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.13 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.13 of 1996 for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement, default, etc. The defendant/petitioner herein was contesting the said suit all along. After his death, his heirs, that is, the present petitioners have been substituted. The contention of the defendant is that during pendency of the suit, the landlord/owner got other accommodations and his accommodations were rented to other persons. This fact was not known to him earlier and so, he filed the application for additional written statement when he became aware of the fact. That application for filing written statement was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application...
Firoz Khan Alias Md. Firoz and ors. Vs. Sk. Ansar Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.98 dated June 19, 2007 and order no.108 dated January 18, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.23 of 2003.2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.371 of 1992 before the learned Munsif, Sixth Court, Alipore against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners praying for a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, habitual default, etc. The defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. They also filed applications under Section 17(1) & 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and those petitions were disposed of accordingly. Owing to financial stringency, the defendants could not make payment of rent from February, 2005 to April, 2007. For that reason, they filed an application on April 25, 2007 praying for condonation of delay in depositing the rents for the said period. By the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »