Kolkata Court March 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. Dipti Kar Vs. Inspector-In Charge, Khardah Police Station and ors ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 9, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and each one of them their men, agents, servants, officers and/or subordinates to submit the report of re-investigation forthwith. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas dated July 30, 2010 (at p.73) the A.S.P., Barrackpore has not reinvestigated the case that was registered under ss.461 and 379 IPC. 3. There is no reason to proceed on the basis that in terms of the order of the Criminal Court the police officer did not take steps for reinvestigation. It has not been stated anywhere that after the order dated July 30, 2010 whereby the Court directed the investigating officer to report on December 27, 2010 the Court did not make any order in the case in which previously a report w...
Ashoka Ghose and ors. Vs. Pradip Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. The plaintiffs in a suit for eviction complain of the alleged contemnors having wilfully and deliberately disobeyed orders dated September 16, 2003 and July 22, 2010 passed in the suit and an order dated May 2, 2008 passed on a contempt petition arising out of the alleged violation of the interlocutory order of September 16, 2003. The material facts have been recorded in a judgment delivered immediately prior to this on an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. Only some essential additional features are specially recorded in assessing as to whether the acts complained of amount to wilful or deliberate disobedience of the relevant orders. The suit was initially for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and alleged damage to the tenanted premises. A subsequent ground has been incorporated by amendment of the plaint on account of alleged sub-letting. On an interlocutory application where the plaintiff complained of the defendant having alleg...
Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited. Vs. Srikrishna Arjun Trading ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Let affidavit-in-opposition be given within one week from date; reply, if any, within a week thereafter. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record.2. we find that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case to have an order of stay of execution of the decree impugned till the disposal of this appeal on condition that the appellant will go on paying an amount equivalent to contractual rent at the rate last paid within fifteenth day of month next following and will also pay arrears, if there be any. 3. Such arrears be paid within a month from today. In default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the stay will stand vacated. Since the stay application contained all the relevant papers used before the learned Single Judge.4. we dispense with the necessity of filing paper book and the stay application be treated as paper book with a direction upon the appellant to serve the Memorandum of Appeal upon the learned counsel for ...
A. K. Ghosh (Paper and Metals) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This is the returnable date of this application. This is a Section 9 application. It is founded on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1 st April, 2010, between the parties containing an arbitration clause. This memorandum, if implemented, would result in Sadananda Saha Rice Mill Private Limited being under the control of the petitioner no.2, Prosenjit Saha and the petitioner no.1 Megamart Exgm Private Limited. Upon performance of this agreement all the shares of the said Rice Mill Company would vest in the petitioner no.1. The petitioners would assume its absolute control. 2. The agreement between the parties also contain various mutual obligations contained in Clauses 1 to 11 thereof. The most contentious are Clauses 4 and 7 which are set out herein below : 04. That MEGAMART EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED shall introduce/arrange for bank loan of Rs.238.59 Lakhs in the form of Cash Credit Rs.100.00 Lakhs, Term Loan Rs.131.59 Lakhs and Bank Guarantee Rs.7.00 Lacs to SADANANDA SAHA RICE MILL P...
Feroze Belal and ors. Vs. the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemption ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. No one has appeared to oppose of the writ application. The affidavit of service, filed in Court today, be taken on record. Aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 31st December, 2010 for the assessment year 2003-04, in respect of the Panchi Bibi Wakf Estate, the petitioners being the Mutwallis of the Wakf Estate, filed an appeal on 2nd February, 2011. It is not in dispute that by a Wakf deed executed sometime in 1803, one Panchi Bibi assigned and dedicated 2 bighas 5 cottahs of land for management and expenses of Mosque and Mehmansarai and for observing the two Id festivals and the 10th day of Moharram. 2. It is a matter of record that the Wakf was enlisted under the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934. By a judgement dated 2nd December, 1961, a Division Bench of this Court held that the deed executed by the said Panchi Bibi was a Wakf deed and directed that a scheme of management of the Wakf estate should be framed. Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act provides as follows: Where an assesses ...
Goutam Choudhury and ors. Vs. Gora Chand Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Ejectment Suit No.441 of 2002 was instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties 1 to 4 herein for eviction of the original tenant, Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Banerjee and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises. One of the grounds on which eviction of the original tenant was sought is that he had sublet the suit premises in favour of one Ramdas Choudhury (since deceased). On the death of Bibhuti Bhusan Banerjee, his legal heirs were substituted as defendants. The heirs of late Ramdas Choudhury applied for being added as defendants. Their prayer was allowed and they have been contesting the suit. 2. During progress of the suit, defendant no.1 Smt. Aruna Banerjee died on July 3, 2007 while the defendant no.2 Sri Sekhar Banerjee died on July 18, 2004. The plaintiffs, being the opposite parties 1 to 4 herein, filed an application before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code) alleging that the interest of the defendants 1 ...
Rajib Nandy. Vs. Sohagi DuttA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.24 dated January 5, 2011 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), Baruipur in Title Suit No.147 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration that the marriage between the parties registered on June 18, 2009 is null and void and other consequential reliefs against the petitioner herein before the learned Judge (Junior Division), Baruipur. The defendant/petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said suit. The suit was at the stage of recording evidence and the P.W.1 was examined on three occasions. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement praying for amendment of the written statement as appearing as annexure B at page no.17. The plaintiff filed an objection to that petitio...
Smt. Dalia MitrA. Vs. Smt. Gita Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated January 3, 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2010 arising out of the Misc. Case No.128 of 2009. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the respondents/opposite parties herein filed an application for execution of a decree for ejectment being Ejectment Execution Case No.113 of 2002. In that execution proceeding, the petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the decree passed in the Ejectment Suit No.297 of 1981 by the learned Judge, Eleventh Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta is illegal, void, inoperative and not binding upon the petitioner on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by practising fraud upon the Court. That application was converted into the Misc. Case No.128 of 2009. It was c...
Smt. Pramila Upadhya and ors. Vs. M/S. Electronics IndiA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (T.S. No. 349 of 2005), had filed their written statement beyond the time limit stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code). A plea was set up before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah, who is in seisin of the suit, that the written statement could not be prepared for want of documents, which the plaintiff sought to rely on to establish his claim in the plaint. The learned Judge was of the view that prior to September 8, 2009, the defendants did not make any prayer for direction on the plaintiff to file documents required for preparation of the written statement. The delay of 46 (forty-six) months in filing the written statement that had occurred in the meanwhile was so long that it could not be condoned. Accordingly, rejection of the prayer of the defendants/petitioners for acceptance of the written statement followed. 2. In this application und...
Union of IndiA. Vs. Binod Kumar Agarwal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. The petitioner, Union of India acting through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, under the Ministry of Railways have questioned award dated 27th February, 2008 passed by Mrinal Kanti Dey, sole Arbitrator and Deputy Chief Material Manager/IC, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati-11 by filing this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. 2. The petitioner invited tender for auction sale of 192.673 M/T of scrap Railways under lot No.BESY/1/98/R/UDL/5 lying under PW1/Andal (Yard) to be held on 27th January, 1998, as was specifically mentioned in the concerned auction sales catalogue. The respondent Binod Kumar Agarwal carrying on business under the name and style of MA TARA TRADING a sole proprietorship concern carrying on business as a dealer, dealing with scrap materials has participated in the auction sale held on 27th January, 1998, by the auction conducted officer/auctioneer namely India Auction Mart, a Government and Railway auctioneer for sale...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »