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.
Dibyendu Das. and ors Vs. the Hon’ble High Court at CalcuttA. and or ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the decision of the respondents for refusing the appointment of the appellant herein to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in spite of empanelment in the merit list published on 23 rd March, 2008. 2. The writ petition filed by the appellant herein was heard along with several other writ petitions analogously and a learned Judge of this Court by the common judgment and order dated 10 th September, 2009 disposed of all the writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on merits without granting any relief to the appellant herein. The appellant herein is a law graduate and appeared in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination 2007 pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal. The final result of the aforesaid examination was published by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal on 23 rd March 2008 and the appellant herein was ...
Sri Sunil Sawant and Others. Vs. the State of West Bengal and Another
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The respondent No. 2 International Combustion (Indian) Ltd used to manufacture IC-Bauser Products. The petitioners were the officers of Asia Pacific Brands India Ltd. They approached International Combustion expressing there eagerness to have a distributorship of IC-Bauser Products belonged to the said company. On November 14, 2006, the parties entered into a distributorship agreement wherein Asia Pacific would sell the products of International Combustion and would get commission @ forty five per cent as and by way of discount. The said agreement for distributorship also recorded other terms and conditions to be followed by the parties.2. On August 27, 2007 International found a sum of Rs. 2,89,237/- being due and payable by Asia Pacific on account of sale of their goods after giving available credit as also debit note for some defectives materials. On a query the learned Counsel appearing for the International informed me that a sum of Rs. 13,38,477/- covering eight invoices was a...
Nazar Ali Khan Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Comp ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. Mr Biswajit De, advocate, for the petitioner. Ms Mitali Bhattacharyya, advocate, for the licensee. Heard on: March 10, 2011. Judgment on: March 10, 2011. 2. The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 3, 2011 is alleging inaction on the part of the licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 in the sense that the licensee has not considered his representation dated February 11, 2011 (at p.17). 3. On detection of theft of electricity by the petitioner the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, disconnected the petitioners supply on August 6, 2010 and lodged an FIR; and the assessing officer of the licensee passed the requisite order of assessment under s.126 provisionally determining the petitioners liability at Rs. 4,58,291. After considering the petitioners objection to the provisional assessment and hearing him, the assessing offic...
Devendra Singh Rajput Vs. Gp. Capt. S.K. Sharma and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. This Original Application/Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the order of conviction as passed in the GCM. 2. On the basis of the allegation that the accused/appellant caused murder of JWO, D.C.Mishra, he was charged Under Section 71 of the Air Force Act for committing a civil offence, that is to say, murder punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence u/s 71 of the Armed Forces Act for committing a civil offence, that is to say, using arms for unlawful purpose punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. On the basis of those charges, one GCM was convened and witnesses were examined from both the sides and after hearing the parties, the GCM was pleased to hold the accused/appellant guilty for both the charges and sentenced him : a) To suffer Civil imprisonment for life; b) To be dismissed from the service; and c) To be reduced to the ranks. 3. As the accused/appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of ...
Sri Rajdeo Ram Vs. Gita Rani Sarkar
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. Journey of the judgment debtor/petitioner undertaken right from the first appellate Court till the Supreme Court to have the decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court against him on March 31, 1995 on a suit instituted in 1991 failed to yield any fruitful result. In the meanwhile, the decree-holder/opposite party put the decree into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No.6 of 2002. After dismissal of the petition for special leave, the judgment-debtor/petitioner did not accept the decree with grace. His indomitable desire to continue to remain in possession of the suit property resulted in presentation of a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) dated July 29, 2006 before the executing Court, giving rise to Misc. Case No.27 of 2006. It was claimed therein that only on July 15, 2006, he came to learn that the decree-holder/opposite party was not the owner of the suit property; it was the State Government that owned the same. An order w...
Dilip Kr. Mishra and anr. Vs. Dubrajpur Co-operative Agricultural Mark ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. The application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated July 17, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Suri at Birbhum in Civil Revision Case No.71 of 2004 arising out of an order dated February 23, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dubrajpur in Title Suit No.3 of 2004. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.3 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dubrajpur for permanent injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. During pendency of the said suit, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. praying for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners filed an objection against the said petition. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved, th...
Aloke Bose Vs. Subal Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. The opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted a suit praying for declaration and injunction in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat (Title Suit No.8 of 2002). The petitioner, inter alia, was defendant no.3 in the suit, while the opposite parties 2 and 3 herein were defendants 1 and 2 respectively.2. The defendant no.3/petitioner raised a counter-claim in accordance with provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code).3. The suit was posted for hearing before the learned Judge on August 25, 2010. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 and the defendant no.3/petitioner filed petitions praying for time. The other defendants were present by filing haziras.4. Learned advocates for the defendants 1 and 2/ opposite parties 2 and 3 submitted that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 and defendant no.3/petitioner were indulging in filing time petition without supplying copy to them and that on earlier occasions ...
Bela Chaudhuri Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
Summary...
Sri Mrinmoy Si. Vs. Smt. Papiya Si.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.50 dated September 23, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.47 of 2007 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.300 of 2007.2. The short fact is that the petitioner instituted a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.300 of 2007 against the opposite party under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The wife/opposite party herein entered appearance in the said suit and she is contesting the same by filing a written statement. The wife filed an application praying for alimony pendente lite and litigation costs. That application has been converted into a misc. case being Misc. Case No.47 of 2007. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions in the said misc. case and upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application for alimony and also amount of Rs.10,0...
Sirajul Islam and anr. Vs. Ekram Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated June 7, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Fast Track Court, Lalbagh in Civil Reivsion Case No.25 of 2003 affirming the order no.67 dated February 21, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional court, Lalbagh in Title Suit No.37 of 1995.2. The opposite party no.1 instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the proforma defendants before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional court, Lalbagh. The defendants/petitioners were contesting the said suit and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence. At that stage, one Amalnama was produced by the plaintiff and it was marked exhibit by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred.3. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials on record, I find th...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »