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.
Gouri Sankar Das. Vs. K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit alleging not only infringement of trademark but also passing off and is directed against an order dated 26th November, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge by which the learned Judge dismissed an application for rejection of the plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeal. In the plaint, the defendant is described as K.C. DASS, carrying on business at 101, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata, within the jurisdiction of the Court and the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit was for restraining the defendant, their men, servants and assigns from in anyway and manner using and/or manufacturing and/or marketing and/or selling the goods or carrying on business under the trade name K. C. Dass and/or any other trademark containing the mark K.C. Dass and/or any other trademark similar to the trademark K.C. Das. 3. One Gouri Sankar Das, claiming to be a Director of the comp...
Consolidated Industrial Fund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against a consolidated order passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Calcutta, in ITA No.25 (Kol) of 2002 dated 20th February, 2004 for the assessment year 1997-98. Although strictly speaking, two separate appeals ought to have been filed by the assessee, on an undertaking by Dr. Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that his client will pay additional court-fees for two appeals, we have overlooked the aforesaid technical objection raised by the Revenue and propose dispose of this appeal. 2. It appears from record that a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30th November, 2004 admitted these appeals on the following substantial questions of law: I) Whether in view of the fact that the Assessing Officer having issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 30th June, 1998 and started proceedings for regular assessment, he had no jur...
Arati Pradhan. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the claimant and is directed against the order no.40 dated May 27, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.C. Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Fast Track First Court, Contai in M.A.C.C. No.261 of 2004. 2. The claimant filed an application for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the insurance company/opposite party no.1 herein is contesting the said claim application. The case was at the stage of hearing argument after close of the evidence on behalf of both the parties. At that stage, the insurer / opposite party no.1 herein filed two application, one for filing an additional written statement and another for leave to file additional written statement. Upon hearing both the sides, the prayer of the insurance company was allowed and the additional written statement filed by the insurance company was accepted. At that stage, the insurance company prayed for production of driving on the pretext that from the evid...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and is directed against an order dated 13th November, 2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship partly allowed a writapplication wherein the writ-petitioner/respondent challenged a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire 105 cottahs of land for the construction of a Fire service station thereby praying for restricting the extent of acquisition to 33 cottahs of land. 2. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) By a notification dated 14th September, 1965 issued under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 a piece of land including pacca building thereon measuring 5 bighas, more or less, was requisitioned by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas for the purpose of setting up a Fire station at a monthly renta...
Ajoy Kumar Shaw and Sunil Kumar Das and anr. Vs. the State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1) Ajoy Kumar Shaw has preferred the appeal no. 224 of 2009 against the judgement and order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Barasat and Sunil Kumar Das and Gopal Krishna Das have preferred the appeal no. 346 of 2009 challenging the same judgement and order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Barasat. Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgement and order, they are heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgement below: 2) On 28.2.2005 at about 7.15 hours, Debendra Basak lodged one FIR against some unknown persons in Amdanga Police Station alleging therein that on 28.2.2005 while he along nine(9) other businessmen, after selling handloom sarees in Calcutta, were returning by a 407 covered van bearing no. WB 51 3648 via Barrackpore Kalyani Highway road at about 5.10/5.15 minutes, near the Jute and Tech. Private Limited another 407 ...
Kingshuk Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and Others.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. The writ petitioner by way of a writ petition came up before this court in the matter of inaction on the part of the respondents in granting necessary two additional increments to the writ petitioner on completion of his Ph.D. degree. 2. The facts stated in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Kalyani Pannalal Institution since 8th July, 1992. Since 20.04.2004 he was appointed as the Headmaster of the Santipur Municipal High School and the respondent no. 3 accorded approval to the said appointment. He applied before the concerned authority for granting necessary permission for doing Ph. D. degree in Education and the respondent no. 4 allowed him to continue the research work of Ph.D. Thereafter, the petitioner duly qualified in the Ph. D. degree on 27.04.2007 and the same was intimated to the respondent no.4 for incorporation of the degree in his service record. The school authority also forwarded the papers of the petitioner to the respondent no. 4...
Shri Debabrata GuptA. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. The petitioner in this art. 226 petition is seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent authorities each one of them to initiate appropriate and legal action against the private respondent nos.4 and 5 herein, in terms of the complaint dated 25.01.2011 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioners son constantly torturing the petitioner and padlocking the doors of his flat has driven out the petitioner. In spite of information given the police have failed and neglected to take necessary steps for recovery of possession of the flat and prosecution of the offender. 3. Hence this court should issue a mandamus commanding the police to put the petitioner into possession of the flat and prosecute the petitioners son. In my opinion, the petitioners remedy, if any, was before the Civil and Criminal Courts. 4. He was free to seek summary remedy under s.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a...
Basundhara Goods Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Lokseva Textrade Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. Each of the Equity Shareholders of all the five Applicant Companies have given written consents to dispense with the meeting of the shareholders of the Applicant Companies for the purpose of considering and approving the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation and have also consented to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant Company Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 with the Applicant Company No.5. However, a meeting has to be held by the said shareholders of the Applicant Company No.1, Applicant Company No.2, Applicant Company No.3, Applicant Company No.4 and Applicant Company No.5 in accordance with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. In my opinion such meeting can be informal, dispensing with all formalities. 2. Mrs. Madhurima Banerjee, Advocate, C/o. Mr. K.R. Das, Advocate, 1B Old Post Office Street, Calcutta, be appointed as a Special Officer for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the shareholders of the Applicant Company No.1 in relation to consenting and/or approving the prop...
Madan Mohan Chandra Alias Chanda and ors. Vs. Madan Mohan Daripa and o ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant nos.3 to 6 and is directed against the order no.67 dated November 30, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Bankura in Title Suit No.28 of 2002 thereby dismissing an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. 2. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos.3 to 6 of this title suit and his co-sharers instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.103 of 1978 before the learned Assistant District Judge against the father of the defendant nos.1 and 2 praying for a decree of declaration of the title in respect of Ka schedule property and for recovery of possession in respect of Kha schedule property, as described in the schedule of that plaint. In that suit, there were as many as 7 plaintiffs and 8 defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiff, Madan Mohan Daripa son of late Bijay Kumar Daripa instituted a suit against Sumit Nandy and Sukumar Nanday, that is, the opposite party nos.1...
Sk. Hayat Box and ors. Vs. Sushil Chandra Naraya Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the applicants and is directed against the order dated September 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No.312 of 2008 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.2 of 2005. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / decreeholder / opposite party no.1 herein got a decree against the opposite party nos.2 to 4 herein for recovery of possession in respect of certain immovable property, as described in the Title Suit No.251 of 1984 and that suit property includes the shop room no.3 as described in the Misc. Case No.312 of 2008. The said decree was put into execution and accordingly a Title Execution Case No.2 of 2005 has arisen. The applicants resist the execution of the decree on the ground that the petitioner no.1 is the owner of the said third room and his room is situated on his purchased land and in fact, the petitioner no.1 inducted the opposite party nos.2 to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »