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.
Rajesh Pradhan. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. The petitioner was charged for committing offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) before the Court of learned Special Judge, 6th Court, 24-Parganas (North). The petitioners prayer for bail was rejected on February 4, 2011. Petitioner filed the instant revisional application as against the order by which his prayer for bail was rejected. According to him, unless and until the Chemical Examination Report was received by the learned Special Judge charge sheet could not be submitted. Hence, prayer for bail should be allowed after expiry of the statutory period. Pertinent to note, that he renewed his prayer on February 7, 2011 when, by a reasoned order, the learned Special Judge rejected his prayer.2. Perusal of the order impugned would show that the learned Judge did not reject the prayer for bail on the said date. He merely postponed the same till the next date of hearing i.e. February 7, 2011.3. The matter was ar...
Monotosh Ghosh. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Short question involved herein, is as to whether the learned Magistrate could withhold release of the accused even after granting of bail.2. The facts reveal, petitioner/accused was charged with an offence of Section 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). He was in custody for about sixty days. Neither the prosecution submitted charge sheet nor he was released on bail. After the statutory period was over petitioner applied for bail on February 25, 2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court Barasat acting as Special Judge under NDPS Act passed an order observing that the accused was in custody for more than sixty days. Since no charge sheet was filed by the prosecution the petitioner should be released on bail bond furnishing P.R bond of rupees thirty thousand with one local surety with like amount on condition that he would not commit any offence while on bail or tamper with the prosecution case. February 26 and February 27 were holidays. ...
Petitioner. Vs. State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in T.A.88 of 2003 arising out of W.P.No.18080 (W) of 1997. 2. The learned Advocate representing the petitioners submits that the State respondents wrongfully and illegally granted patta in favour of the respondent no.8 (since deceased) without considering the fact that the said respondent no.8 was engaged in defence service The learned Advocate of the petitioners further submits that in view of second proviso to Clause ( c ) of sub section 1 of Section 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, no settlement of land can be made with any person or with a member of the family of such person who is engaged or employed in any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, calling, service or industrial occupation. 3. The learned Advocate representing the petitioners specifically urged before this Court that in view of the aforesaid proviso to...
Samir Kumar Ghosh. vs. the Hon'Ble Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of a dismissed employee of this Court and is directed against order dated 12th May, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed a writ application filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner challenged a communication given by the registry that his appeal preferred before the Honble Chief Justice has been dismissed. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus: 2. The writ petitioner was working as an Upper Division Assistant in the Appellate Side of this Court and was implicated in a disciplinary proceeding upon issue of a charge-sheet on certain misconducts against the petitioner. After the enquiry was complete and report was submitted, a dismissal order was passed. 3. The writ petitioner challenged the said order in a writ application being Matter No.274 of 1992. The said writ application was finally...
Sisir Banerjee. Vs. Shrimati Sujata SenguptA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the explanation given in the application, we are convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. We, thus, condone the delay in filing the appeal. Re : Application for Stay2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are of the view that the appeal having been 2 preferred against grant of Letters of Administration, during the pendency of the present appeal the respondent should be restrained from transferring, alienating or encumbering the property in question on the basis of Letters of Administration granted in her favour. 3. The parties are directed to maintain the existing possession as on this date till the disposal of the appeal. Since the sole beneficiary under the Will has already entered appearance, we dispense with service of notice of this appeal upon the other respondents who have...
Zohra Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kushal Chand Dugar.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Few facts have to be noted before I proceed to pass any order today. An order of Brother Sanjib Banerjee, J. made on 25th February, 2011 in an interim application in a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner, in this Court being GA No.576 of 2011, CS No.40 of 2011 is produced before me. The parties are described as petitioner and the respondent, according to the section 9 application, in this order. 2. The subject matter of that suit as told to me by the parties is for adjudging the invalidity of the agreement between the parties, allegedly containing an arbitration clause on which this section 9 application is founded. This is what His Lordship, inter alia, recorded The first defendant is represented. The first defendant says that there are orders subsisting in the first defendants favour in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which the plaintiff has not been able to dislodge yet. Without prejudice to the first defendants rights in ...
RobIn Paul and anr. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This application has been filed under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 for stay of the winding up order dated 8th July, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that it is a contributory having more than 60% of the total issued and paid up share capital. In view of the winding up petition filed by an unsecured creditor and the inability of the company to make payment an order of winding up was passed on 8th July, 2003. A direction for payment was also passed but no payment could be made and advertisements were published. Although best efforts were made to make payment of the bona fide dues of the creditors and to run the garden, the same could not be made. Subsequently some of the claims of the unsecured creditors were settled and the applicant is ready and willing to make payment to the other unsecured creditors too. The applicant is desirous of running the tea estate by liquidating the dues of its creditors provided instalment is granted. 2. A settlement has been reached between...
Tripuresh Mukherjee. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. The entire disputes relate to the running of a sweetmeat shop under the name and style of S.N. Mukherjee Food Corner at premises No.50, S. N. Banerjee Road, Police Station Taltala, Kolkata 700014. The petitioner claims that his predecessors-in-interest, as tenants, carried on the business of running a sawmill on a part of the said premises. After the proforma respondents became owners of the premises, they decided to develop the said premises by demolition of existing structures including the sawmill of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to have instituted Title Suit No.842 of 2002 in the City Civil Court at Kolkata against the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma respondents. On December 16, 2004 the suit was decreed of in terms of the Solenama(settlement) filed in Court. The terms and conditions agreed upon by the petitioner and the predecessor-in interest(SIC) of the private respondents, inter alia, provided as follows: (c) The plaintiffs now occupying a total carpet are...
Ms. Pemla Ghosal and anr. Vs. Ms. Neelanjana Ghosal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. This is an application for revocation of the grant of probate in rather peculiar circumstances. The applicants are the second wife of the brother of the testator and the daughter of the brother through the second wife. The Will was propounded by the daughter of the brother through the divorced first wife of the brother. The substantial bequest relates to an immovable property which the profounder claims to have gone to her. 2. The testator was survived by his wife. The executor named in the Will was the brother and, failing the brother, the daughter of such brother through his first marriage. The Will was made in the year 1995, the testator died in the year 2003, the brother died on July 10, 2008, the application for grant was made immediately thereafter and the grant was made on December 1, 2008. According to the Will, the testator had apparently appointed brother Smaran Ghosal to be the executor. The third paragraph of the Will reads as follows: I give and bequeath my share in pr...
Ashis Kumar Maity. Vs. Anupriya Dutta GuptA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.21 dated January 11, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Ejectment Suit No.17 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted an ejectment suit being the Ejectment Suit No.17 of 2009 against the defendant/petitioner herein for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement, nuisance, etc. The defendant/petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. Even he has denied that the plaintiff is the landlord. Issues have been framed and the suit is at the stage of cross-examination of the P.W.1. At that time, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an application for amendment of his written statement in the manner as indicated in his application appearing as annexure...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »