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.
H. Guru Instruments Private Limited. Vs. Mrs. Dipti Mookherjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The suit has been recently filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property in Puri. The first relief claimed is for specific performance of the agreement by directing the defendant to execute the deed of conveyance relating to the property in terms of the agreement of February 23, 2010. The second relief claimed is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring or selling the suit property to any person other than the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. There are the other usual reliefs for receiver and attachment. 2. GA No. 495 of 2011 is the plaintiffs application for interlocutory orders in aid of the ultimate reliefs claimed in the suit. GA No. 660 of 2011 is the defendants application for dismissal and or rejection of the plaint relating thereto. Though the later application claims to have been made on behalf of all the defendants, the affidavit of competency filed by the first defendant shows that only the ...
Samser Gaji and ors. Vs. Sultan Alam and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant nos.1(a) to 1(d) and is directed against the order no.101 dated May 31, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sixth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.52 of 2000 thereby rejecting the report submitted by the learned commissioner. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.52 of 2000 for partition against the petitioners and other defendants in respect of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sixth Court, Alipore. The suit was decreed in the preliminary form directing the parties to make amicable partition within a specified time. The parties have failed to make amicable partition. Thereafter, the plaintiff prayed for appointment of a partition commissioner to effect partition according to the preliminary decree. That application was allowed appointing a partition commissioner to effect partition. The c...
Soumen Bhattacharjee Vs. Paramita Bhattacharjee (Ganguly)
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution dated January 11, 2011, the petitioner (hereafter the husband) calls in question order no.7 dated December 20, 2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the opposite party (hereafter the wife) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter the Act) dated September 14, 2010 was allowed on contest. It was held that the wife is entitled to alimony pendente lite of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. The husband was also directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as litigation cost to the wife. 2. The learned Judge after noting the stand of the husband that his gross salary is Rs. 14,800/- per month, arrived at a conclusion on perusal of his salary slip that he was earning more than what he had claimed and proceeded to grant alimony pendente lite , as noticed above. 3. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the husband c...
Pramila Mukherjee. Vs. Smt. Uma Kar.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated January 12, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Third Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.139 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.139 of 2005 before the learned Additional Rent Controller for ejectment of the defendants from the premises in suit, as described in the suit on the ground of default and other grounds. The defendants entered appearance and they filed an application under Section 7(1) and another application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The application under Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1997 was allowed and the application under Section 7(2) of the said Act was heard and thereafter it was disposed of by the impugned order directing the ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. B.G. Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. The subject matter of controversy is a barge described as Bhopana 3. This barge was the subject matter of a hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. The barge was under hypothecation with the petitioner. The petitioner took out the instant Section 9 proceeding being AP No.45 of 2011, where, inter alia, a Receiver was appointed to take symbolic possession of this barge. There was also the usual order of injunction upon the hirer. In terms of that order, the Receiver is already in symbolic possession. 2. The Visakhapatnam port comes forward. They have filed an affidavit. It appears from that affidavit including Annexure A at page 11 thereof that the respondents had availed of some dry docking service for this barge from the port authorities. The port authorities have a claim for such dry docking service and are exercising a lien on the barge in respect of such claim under Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Mr. Ashok Jena, learned Counsel for the P...
Abdur Rahaman. Vs. State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the referring claimant and is directed against the order no.86 dated June 21, 2007 passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, First Court, Alipore in L.R.A. Case No.159 of 1979 (v) thereby rejecting an application dated December 12, 2005. 2. The short fact is that certain plots of the referring claimant were acquisitioned by the Stated Government and compensation was awarded. Subsequently, by filing an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. the referring claimant claimed enhancement of the compensation and that prayer was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order could be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that on the basis of the notification dated February 6, 1973 the possession of the lands in question of the referring claimant was taken by t...
Nadu Mitra and ors. Vs. Biswanath Datta and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. These two revisional applications are taken up together since they arose out of the same title appeal. For convenience, I am discussing the fact of the C.O. No.136 of 2006. 2. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.44 dated November 16, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Chandannagore in Title Appeal No.246 of 1998 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.149 of 1995 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandannagore. The defendant nos.1 to 5 /opposite party nos.1 to 5 herein entered appearance and contested the said suit by filing a written statement. Upon taking evidence on behalf of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on contest by a judgment and decree dated August 26, ...
Tenants' Association and Ors. vs. Narayan Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. By order dated 21st September, 2010 a Rule was issued. Affidavits have been filed in answer to such Rule. From a reading of the affidavit filed by the occupants, namely, the respondent nos.5 and 6 the only ground on which the maintainability of the contempt application has been challenged is the false story of parking of no vehicles in front of the lift or common areas and no ascertainment of the common areas of the said premises. 2. On 17th November, 2009 an undertaking was given by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 that no motorcycle would be parked in the common areas of the said building. Inspires thereof motorcycles have been parked and in the affidavit filed by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 showing cause why no Rule should be issued it has been specifically pleaded that besides payment of maintenance charges a sum of Rs.100/- was being paid for parking of the motorcycles. It was on this basis that the Rule was issued. This day no new fact has been dis...
Anil Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Shyamapada Ghara and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.99 dated April 17, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.164 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application dated March 6, 2007 filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.164 of 1996 for declaration, framing of a scheme, injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a joint written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties were to adduce evidence. While the P.W.2 was being examined-in-chief on January 8, 2006, a sebait Niyogpartra dated October 3, 1971 was shown to him asking the question whether the said Niyogpatra bears his signature or not was put to the witness. The recording was to this effect this is my signature on th...
Sri Sujit Mukherjee. Vs. Smt. Bela Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. The petitioner and the opposite parties entered into an agreement dated December 11, 1996 (hereafter the said agreement), written on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.20/-, in respect of sale of a property at a price of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh) only. Alleging that the opposite parties had failed to honour the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No.3277 of 2009 for specific performance of contract and injunction. The petitioner prayed for a decree for specific performance of the said agreement along with its amendment made in June, 2007 and also for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from selling/transferring the suit property to any third party. Trial of the suit has commenced and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore is in seisin thereof. 2. The petitioner in course of his examination tendered the said agreement in evidence. The trial Judge having found that the agreement had not been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »