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.
Pankaj Kumar HazrA. Vs. Dr. Arabinda Nayak and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.104 dated January 29, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Contai in Title Suit No.89 of 2001. The defendant no.3 is the petitioner. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.89 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Contai against the opposite party nos.2 & 3 as the defendant nos.1 & 2 and the petitioner herein and the opposite party no.4 herein as the defendant nos. 3 & 4. According to the plaint case, the defendant no.4 was the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant nos.1 & 2 being the son-in-law and the daughter of the defendant no.4 represented that the defendant no.4 executed and registered two deeds of gift in favour of the defendant nos.1 & 2. By making such representation, the defendant nos.1 & 2 sold out the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of taking possession, the defendant no.3, son of the defendant no.4, res...
Sanjeev Rai Vs. the State of West Bengal and Another
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Petitioner married the respondent No. 2 on June 22, 2004. The marriage was solemnized at Balia in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 2 made a complaint with the local Police Station at Asansol that her husband and in-laws subjected her to torture. The Police initially did not entertain the complaint. She approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The complaint before the learned Magistrate would reveal as under:i) The marriage was a negotiated one. In marriage, articles like utensils- made of steel, silver, and gun-metal; furniture; electronic goods were given. Old and silver ornaments were also given apart from cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid as dowry, out of which Rs. 65,000/-was paid in cash and Rs. 1,35,000/- in draft in the name of Indranil Rai the uncle in-law of the petitioner.ii) The in-laws assured the bridal side that the money would be kept in deposit with the local Post Office where the wife of the brother-in-law of the ...
Promod Kumar Rai Vs. Ms. Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J: 1. Parties being the petitioner and the respondent no.1 entered into an agreement under which the respondent no.1 extended financial assistance to the petitioner to the extent of rupees thirty-four lakhs vide loan agreement dated August 29, 2007. The petitioner contended that at the time of sanction of the loan the respondent no.1 got blank papers signed by him as well as his parents and brother. He also executed a deed of mortgage in respect of his properties. It was agreed that in case of dispute the parties would resolve such dispute through arbitration. Under the agreement the loan was to be repaid along with interest at the rate of 14.25 per cent per annum by payment of one hundred eighty monthly instalments at the rate of rupees forty-five thousand eight hundred and fifty-two payable on and from October 5, 2007. 2. The petitioner paid fifteen instalments. The respondent no.1, however, wrongfully adjusted the said instalments against interest, that too at t...
J.P. Construction Private Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated January 25, 2011 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and their men, agents, and servants to quash, and/or set aside the impugned tender/Licence issued to the respondent No.17 a Joint Venture Consortium formed by the respondent no.15 and 16 on 9th September, 2009 which culminated from the circulars being AIC No.7/2007 dated 28th September, 2007, AIC 3/2010 dated 2nd June, 2010, AIC No. 15/2008 dated 31st December, 2008, AIC No.6/2009 dated 30th June, 2009, AIC No.13/2009 dated 31st December, 2009 the Impugned Regulations being passed by the Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 forthwith. 2. The licence dated September 9, 2009 (at p.245) was issued to a joint venture consortium t...
Rabiyal Mondal and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 3(6) of 1993 arising out of Sessions case No. 7 (3) of 1993 sentencing each of the appellants to suffer R.I. for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.600/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 392 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.3.1992 at about 10.00 P.M. the informant along with others, in all 55 persons boarded a reserved bus bearing No. 2706 and were proceeding to Calcutta to attend a meeting of the CPI(M) party at Brigade Parade Ground. At about 11.45 P.M. when the bus came near Leprosy Colony at Peardoba, the road was found obstructed with boulders and pipes. The driver slowed down the speed of the vehicle. In the light of the bus it was found that 2/3 persons were rushing towards the bus and they hurled a bomb to the left side of the cabin of the bus. The driver had to stop the b...
Harikishan Vs. Union of India, Service Through the Secretary Deptt. of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. The original writ petition, which was filed before the Honble High Court at Calcutta has been transferred to this Bench and renumbered as T A 98 of 2010. 2. The case, as made out in the writ petition is that the petitioner joined the IndianArmy on June 16, 1984 and performed his duties diligently and sincerely. After ten years of exemplary service, the petitioner was posted at 24 Mountain Brigade. On December 8, 1995 the Commanding Officer of the said Brigade issued charge sheet against the petitioner alleging therein that he was absent without leave from the unit lines on August 10, 1995 from 17.00 Hr. to 20.30 Hrs. On the basis of such allegation, a Summary Court Martial Proceeding was held and Col B K Gandhi acted as the Presiding Officer of the said proceeding. On 13.12.1995 the Court Martial passed sentence against the petitioner recommending dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted a petition with the GOC-IN-C, Eastern Command, aga...
Rotoflex Printing and Laminating Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhaulgiree Polyolef ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted Title Suit no. 75/2005 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property as well as for recovery of possession thereof. The defendant/petitioner filed a petition under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the Act) and prayed 2 for determination of the rate of rent due and payable by it including arrear rent. 2. The case made out by the defendant/petitioner in the petition appears to be that a petition under Section 7(1) of the Act had been filed on October 4, 2005 and that current rent is being deposited in Court in accordance with law; that previously there was cordial business relation between the plaintiff and the defendant as a result of which the defendant (previously known as Manjusree Packaging Pvt. Ltd.) gave accommodation loan from time to time since January 31, 1991 as well as sold and delivered goods to the p...
Sanjoy Saha Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated October 1, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the passport officer to issue him a passport. The petitioner was one of the accused in Belghoria P.S. Case No.29 dated February 26, 2002 under ss.121,121A,122,123,124A,489B,489C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and 14 of the Foreigners Act,1945. 2. The Court of Session trying the offences delivered a judgment dated December 19, 2007 in the case acquitting the petitioner, but ordering confiscation of the seized articles including his passport, except the border register and the peon book of Calcutta Lodge. He did not appeal from the order, nor has he applied to the passport officer for issuing him a new passport. 3. In view of the above-noted situation, I am unable to see how the petitioner, not applying to the passport officer according to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the rules made thereunder, can seek a mandamus commanding the passport of...
Ranjita Apartment Owners’association and ors. Vs. Sri Prabir Kumar C ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. This application is directed against the order no.12 dated May 11, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sixteenth Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1126 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. A dispute arose between the parties over certain points of an agreement dated January 30, 2002, which lays down a clause for settlement of the dispute by appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, an arbitrator was appointed by the Honble Justice, Calcutta High Court. The arbitrator submitted an award. The opposite party filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. In that application, the petitioners filed an application under Section 42 of the said Act of 1996 contending, inter alia, that the application for setting aside the award is not maintainable before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas. That...
Sambhu Nath SamantA. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Metya and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.177 dated June 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No.195 of 1985 thereby accepting the report submitted by the learned commissioner holding local investigation.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.195 of 1985 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Medinipur against the petitioner and other opposite parties for eviction and recovery of possession of a licensee, that is, the petitioner. In that suit, the plaintiff has contended that he is the owner of the L.R. Dag No.841 and R.S. Plot No.303 in the District - Purba Medinipur and the defendant/petitioner herein was given possession of the same by the plaintiff as per agreement between the parties. The petitioner is contesting the said suit denying the materials allegations contained in the plaint ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »