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.
Smt. Mamata Bhattacharya Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 14, 2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding the registering officer to accept the deficit stamp and return her document in terms of provisions of s.61(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. The petitioner presented a document before A.D.S.R., Cossipore, Dum Dum, North 24-Parganas for registration under provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The registering officer gave the petitioner a receipt dated June 11, 1991 under s.52(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the document has not been returned even after production of the receipt, the petitioner brought this petition. 3. Mr Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the registering officer could not refuse to return the document on the grounds that it was prepared using fake stamps, especially when the petitioner, not responsible in any manner, was ready and willing to pay the deficit stamp. 4. On instructions, Mr. Saha, counsel for the State, submits that it is tru...
Snow View Properties Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of an intervener and is directed against the order no.21 dated August 18, 2006, order no.37 dated September 19, 2007, order no.39 dated January 16, 2008 and order no.45 dated July 22, 2008 passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal I in R. P. Case No.99 of 2003 arising out of T. A. No.74 of 1997.2. The opposite party no.1 is the certificate holder and the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are the certificate debtors. The execution proceeding, namely, R. P. Proceeding No.99 of 2003 is pending before the learned Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal I for execution of the recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.49,37,106.92 paisa. The certificate holder took steps for attachment of the properties of the Snow View Properties Private Limited and M/s. Dheklapara Tea Estate situated at 42CA, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta 700 019 and at 135, Canning Street, Calcutta 700 001 respectively and also to appoint a receiver ...
Surajit Mazumdar. Vs. Marjorie Mazumdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.30 dated June 16, 2009 and the order no.57 dated June 17, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.17 of 2006.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed the said title suit being Title Suit No.17 of 2006 praying for several counts of declarations, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they are the joint 50% owners in respect of the 3 storied building at 10/1/C, Swinhoe Street under Police Station Gariahat, Kolkata 700 019. The defendant / opposite party is the wife of late Saroj Kumar Mazumdar and the latter was the uncle of the plaintiffs. The suit properties originally belonged to late Kamal Basini Mazumdar and by a deed of gift dated August 30, 1967, she gifted the said property in equal shares to the plaintiffs jointly to the extent of 50% and to one Binay Krishna Mazum...
Mursalim Shaikh @ Bahadur Shaikh and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. BACK DROP1. On or about September 6, 2004 the Principal of Ludhar Institution in the district of Mursidabad made a complaint to the Officer in-charge, Samserganj Police Station to the effect that he had come back from Kolkata on the said day via Janasatabdi Express after his medical treatment being accompanied by Abul Hossain. While he was proceeding towards his house from the station through a rickshaw some armed miscreants stopped his rickshaw in front of the godown of the station road. They brandished a dagger and a chisel and demanded all valuables. The miscreants held a dagger at his neck as well as at the neck of Abdul. One of them held a pistol on their chest and ultimately snatched away the VIP suitcase and fled away towards the railway track on the right side. There was loadshedding at that time. He however, could see four miscreants. He was not sure about any other miscreant being present. He gave a list of the articles which he lost due to snatching of his suitcase.2. The...
Mr. Raghunath Das. Vs. the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition is aggrieved by certain directions given by CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, by a letter dated September 2,2010 (at p.14). 2. The petitioner applied for supply of electricity as an occupier of a portion of the premises mentioned in the notice. CESC directed him to produce current tenancy agreement in proof of his claim that he is an occupier of the portion in question of the premises. 3. Counsel for CESC is unable to show any law that entitles or empowers CESC to call upon the petitioner to produce a tenancy agreement in proof of his claim that he is an occupier of the part in question of the premises. In view of the provisions of s.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 if the petitioner is an occupier of the premises to which he wants supply, he is entitled to supply. He is not required to produce any tenancy agreement in proof of his claim that he is an occupier of the premises. 4. What CESC is required to ascertain is whether the...
Sree Balajee Seva Samity and ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar Goyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated July 29, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in Civil Revision No.5(S) of 2003 arising out of the order no.43 dated January 14, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Judicial Case No.32 of 1997.2. The matter relates to an application for amendment of an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioners and the opposite party nos.3 & 4 filed an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and that application was registered as Misc. Judicial Case No.32 of 1997. The petitioners of that misc. case claimed pre-emption on the basis of that fact that they are adjoining land owners of the land sought to be pre-empted. The opposite parties of the misc. case are contesting the said misc. case. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their stand. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing argu...
Asraful Haque Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Short question involved herein would be whether the learned Judge committed any error in accepting the F.S.L. report without compelling the concerned officer being the author of the report to come and dispose before the Court.2. The order impugned herein rejected the prayer of the defence inter alia asking for rejection of the report in absence of the author despite service of summons upon him. The learned judge considered the provision of Section 293 of the Criminal Civil Procedure Code and its interpretation by the Apex Court in 2010 Volume-I Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page-1165 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs- Mast Ram).3. The defence cited another Apex Court decision reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal NOC 163 [Jharkhand] (Vijay Narayan Singh VS- State of Bihar[now Jharkhand]). The learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Berhampore held that the F.S.L. report so submitted by the prosecution was not in dispute. Hence, Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code wou...
Ruma Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 3,2011 is seeking a mandamus commanding the officer in charge of Shibpur police station not to interfere with the investigation of Shibpur P.S. Case No.745 of 2010 under ss. 448, 323, 325,504, 506, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Counsel submits that it will be evident from the documents produced with the petition, especially from the one at p.34, that because of interference of the officer in charge of the police station the investigating officer has not arrested any accused till date. According to him, the officer in charge of the police station cannot interfere with the investigation, for it is entirely for the investigating officer to investigate the case and prepare and submit the report before the Magistrate. 3. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that if, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence whic...
Baidyanath Modak. Vs. Smt. Swapna Modak and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated September 5, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No.84 of 1999 thereby reversing the order no.30 dated June 8, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.62 of 1997.2. The petitioner was the defendant no.1 of the title suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for declaration and partition. In that suit, the defendants in two sets, namely, the defendant nos.1 to 13 in one set and the defendant nos.14 & 15, namely, the opposite party nos.2 & 3, in another set, are contesting the said suit by filing separate written statements. The defendant nos.1 to 13 filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. The defendant nos.14 & 15 filed an objection against that application with the caption objection but, in fact, it was a counter-claim to have a right of possession of comm...
Sk. Qumru Alam. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated March 26, 2009 passed by the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, First Bench, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.2171 of 2007. The appellant has preferred this application contending, inter alia, that he entered into an agreement for sale of a flat with M/s. Shrachi Leathertex Private Limited Company at premises no.23, Marquis Street under Police Station New Market as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them. Amongst other clauses, the petitioner was to get the said flat bearing no.SE having an area of 1540.50 square feet. At the time of getting possession, the petitioner noticed that he got the flat with an area of 1050 square feet instead of 1540.50 square feet as per agreement. Since he got less area he took appropriate steps before the Consumer Forum.2. In the meantime, the Assessor Collector (South), opposite party no.2 herein, assessed the annual valuation of the said flat to the tune of Rs.69,320/-. The petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »