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.
Tarakeswar Tewari. Vs. Rambahadur Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated November 23, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.125 of 1995 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the opposite parties.2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that one Smt. Jyotirmoyee Das instituted a suit being Title Suit No.125 of 1995 for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. with regard to the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, devolution of interest by a registered deed took place and the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein became the owners of the premises in suit. They were substituted accordingly and they were proceeding with the suit. After lapse of three...
Smt. Anima Gupta (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sri Debasish Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.49 dated September 21, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Siliguri in Other Suit No.7 of 2000 arising out of the Misc. Judicial Probate Case No.42 of 1997. The short fact is that the opposite party no.1 herein filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act praying for grant of probate of a Will of late Nilima Sengupta, wife of late Nripendra Bhusan Sengupta. That application is being contested and as such it was converted into the Other Suit No.7 of 2000. Several litigations are pending between the parties.2. Ultimately, the parties settled the disputes. They even filed a compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. in respect of the Other Suit No.7 of 2000. That application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. The question is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application under Ord...
Mahadev Ghosh and Others. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, 3rd Court, Krishnanagare sentencing each of the appellants, namely, Balai Ghosh, Mahadev Ghosh, Loharam Ghosh, Naru Ghosh, Jhunu Ghosh and Sankar Ghosh to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge also convicted and sentenced Balai Ghosh, Mahadev Ghosh, Naru Ghosh, Jhunu Ghosh, Sankar Ghosh and Jaladhar Ghosh to suffer R.I. for two years each under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Chandi Charan Bera, a constable lodged complaint with Inspector-in-charge of Kotwali P.S., Nadia alleging that on 08.2.1985 at about 12.20 P.M.Sudhir Santra, the Chowkidar of Daluipur village along with 2/3 persons came to the out post and informed that about 2...
Jaydeb Shaw Vs. Purna Chandra Velecha and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated January 31, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 4th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 24 of 2006.2. The petitioner filed an application under section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 103 of 1994 as nullity, having passed against one of the defendant who was dead.3. Briefly stated the fact, one Ranibala shaw, Sashibala Shaw and Fulkumari Bewa having purchased the premises in question from one Gopal Chandra Paul by a dint of purchase dated November 3, 1947. and after the death of Fulkumari her share devolved upon her two daughters namely Sashibala and Ranibala in equal share and thus the said daughters became the owners to the extent of undivided half share each. The said Ranibala and Sashibala entered into the joint venture agreement with the decree holder/opposite party no. 1 for the development of the pr...
Dara Singh and ors. Vs. Mrs. Chanda Kaur Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against an order no. 218 dated May 11, 2006 passed by Sri P.K. Chakraborty, learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Kolkata in Title Suit no. 1003 of 1976.2. This case has a chequered history. The litigation started sometimes in the year 1967 with the initiation of the suit being Title Suit No. 6 of 1967 filed by the opposite party no. 12, Life Corporation of India against one Sarjan Singh, the original defendant no. 2 in the instant suit treating him as trespasser and claiming recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners instituted title suit no. 1003 of 1976 against the Life Corporation of India as principle defendant and incorporated one Sarjan Singh and Punaya Singh as the defendant no. 2 and 3. The relief claimed in the said suit was in respect of a tenancy belonging to the premises of the Life Corporation of India which was initially held by one Pujan Singh who being bach...
Sipra Bhattacharya (Lahiri) Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. This writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2007 by which the Secretary to the Government of west Bengal Mass Education Extension Department directed the recovery of the overdrawn amount from the writ petitioner and also to stop the annual increment w.e.f. 1.4.2001.2. The writ petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher in the vacant post in Asutosh Institution- a DA getting institution imparting education to the physically handicapped. The approval of such appointment was duly accorded by the Director of the Technical Education, West Bengal on 30.1.1986 with retrospective effect from 5.8.1985. Subsequently the writ petitioner was appointed as Principal w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and such approval was granted by the Deputy Director of Technical Education, West Bengal on 11.10.1988. Subsequently the Government of West Bengal Mass Education Extension Department issued a memo dated 30.3.2001 sanctioning the sponsorship to the said Asutosh Institution. It was specifically mentioned...
Mithun SahA. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. A short but interesting question of law is involved in this writ application. The point involved herein is whether an order of suspension under Rule 7(2) of the West Bengal Primary Education (Conduct of Service of Teachers of Primary Schools) Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred as 2001 Rule) is liable to be recalled the moment the employee is enlarged on bail.2. Before dealing with the question as stated the brief fact of this writ application, as emerges is that the petitioner was appointed as the primary school teacher. The petitioner was arrested on the basis of a complaint lodged by his wife under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and was detained in custody for more than a month. Rule 7(2) of the said rules of 2001 postulates a deemed suspension to be operative until further orders. The writ petitioner has challenged the said order of suspension issued by invoking the said rule on the ground that a criminal case leading to arrest of the writ petitioner does not relate to ...
Kusum Jain. Vs. Vinay Kumar AgarwalA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1) A Short but, indeed, an intricate question of law is raised in this revision application. To be stated precisely, the manner in which the learned Appellate Court suspended the sentence under challenge in the appeal is, in fact, questioned in this application.2) In a case, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, being no. C 986 of 1999, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta found the appellant guilty of offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15,05,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 3(three) months. The learned Court directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/-, in case fine is realised, to the complaint of the case as compensation. That judgement and order has been challenged in an appeal in the Court of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta being Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2010.3) The order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta which has been impugned in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proc...
Debaprasad Paul Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-ii, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against order dated October 28, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Calcutta, in ITA No.43 (Kol) of 2003 relating to the Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated December 23, 2004 admitted the present appeal on the following substantial questions of law: I) Whether having regard to the fact that the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93 having been made under Section 143(3) on 22.3.1995 and having regard to the admitted facts that the search and seizure was made in the year 1993 and the deposition of Mr. D.K. Bal of M/s. D.R. Enterprises having been made on 19th August, 1993 in the year 1993 itself at the time of the search and seizure, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act was on the basis of confirmed information regarding the additional income su...
M/S. Diagnostics Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-xx and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated 13th November, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1507/Kol/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus: a) The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 with the statement of accounts and in the said return, the assessee disclosed a loss of Rs.300/-. b) After filing of the return, the Assessing Officer processed the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) on the total income of Rs.23,129/- raising a demand of Rs.10,850/-. Notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) was thereafter served upon the appellant and in response to the said notice, the authorized representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. The appellant alleged that it had made payment of Rs.1,00,737/- to M/s. Imprints-N-Trade, a sum of Rs.50,675/...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »