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.
Luxmi Tea Company Limited. Vs. Bhuyankhat Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. The order dated 2nd August, 2010, is corrected by replacing 25th June 2010 by 29th June 2010. I have perused a note issued on behalf of A.R. (Company) dated 23rd March, 2011. The Company Matters Registry is cautioned that they are not to undertake any exercise for referring matters to the Court for correction of any order or correction of any record under Section 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Normally an order is to be drawn up strictly as it is. If there is any error in the order, it is for the Court to suo motu order rectification or for any party aggrieved by such erroneous order to apply to the Court for rectification. 3. The Registry is to draw up, settle and complete the order strictly according to the Chapter XVI of O.S. rules. If there are some defects, like absence of petition or affidavit or Judges Summons or absence of a prayer in terms whereof the order has been passed or an order has been passed in a disposed of matter or the cause title or case number ...
Sri Sukumar Dey. Vs, Sri Malay Bose.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. On 7th April, 2010, this Court passed an order restraining the private respondents from starting any construction or continuing any construction, if already started. Alleging deliberate and willful violation of the aforesaid order, the present application for contempt was filed against Sri Malay Bose who was the private respondent in W. P. No.403 of 2010. 2. It is he who was restrained from starting any construction or continuing any construction, if already started. The writ petitioner has alleged that the order dated 7th April, 2010 was deliberately violated and, therefore, the alleged contemnor is guilty of contumacious and willful violation of the order passed by this Court. A Rule was issued. Thereafter, the alleged contemnor appeared and prayed for liberty to file an affidavit. Such liberty was granted. Pursuant thereto he has filed an affidavit. His defence is one of denial couched in the language as follows: It is denied that the petitioner acted in violation of order dated...
Sukumar HazrA. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the writ petitioner after condoning the age bar in compliance of the order dated 20.11.1998 passed by G.R. Bhattacherjee, J in WP no. 10802 (w) of 1998. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared for the interview held for the appointment of the assistant teacher by the Howrah District Primary School Council and was empanelled under serial no. 1483 after obtaining 34 marks. In spite of being empanelled, the appointment letter was not issued and the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP no. 10802 (w) of 1998 before this court praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner as assistant teacher of the primary school. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioner along with other candidates according to the recruitment rules in c...
Rupa Agarwal and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1) Smt. Rupa Agarwal and Smt. Deepa Tantia have taken out this application Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of proceeding in Tollygunge Police Station Case No. 281 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 under Sections 498A/384/327/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code so far as that relates to them. 2) Tollygunge Police Station case No. 281 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 was initiated on the basis of a written complaint filed by Smt. Megha Agarwal wife of Deepak Agarwal in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 15.11.2009 which was referred to Tollygunge Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for treating the same as FIR and to start investigation and to report. Smt. Megha Agarwal filed that written complaint against her husband Deepak Agarwal, fatherin-law Dursi Chandra Agarwal , Smt. Raj Kumari Agarwal, mother-in-law, Smt. Deepa Tanti, married sister-in-law and Smt. Rupa Agarwal, married sister-in-law. The allegation...
Xpro India Ltd. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. None appears for the Central Government in spite of notice. Although this application is described as having been made under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, it seeks a declaration that Sections 391 to 394 have no application as far as the arrangement in question is concerned. 2. The applicant is a transferee company. The transferor was its 100% subsidiary. Upon completion of the arrangement the assets and liabilities of the transferor subsidiary would vest in the transferee. But there would be no change in the share holding of the transferee, as submitted. It is also argued that this arrangement is not an arrangement between the transferee and its creditors or the transferee and its members as neither the creditors nor the members are a party to the arrangement. 3. Therefore, recourse to the provisions Sections 391 to 394 need not be taken. I have been cited two judgements; one of the Bombay High Court in Mahaamba Investments Ltd. vs. IDI Limited; 105 Company Cases page 16 a...
Sanchita BhattacharyA. Vs. Dr. Partha Sarathi Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The petitioner and the opposite party no.1, both doctors by profession, are presently settled abroad. While the opposite party no.1 is engaged in the United Kingdom, the petitioner is working as a pediatrician in Oman. 2. Incidentally, one is the spouse of the other. They are, however, engaged in a bitter fight in a suit for declaration and injunction instituted by the opposite party no.1 over property rights. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Alipore is in seisin of the suit registered as Title Suit No.11 of 2007, wherein the petitioner has set up a counter claim too. 3. The real dispute between the parties is in respect of monies standing to the credit of various joint accounts maintained by them in different banks, specifically mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as well as in the counter-claim. 4. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 had the occasion to approach this Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, registered as C.O. 1...
N. V. Abn Amro Bank. Vs. Surajit Sen.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The suit is in furtherance of a decree obtained outside India by the plaintiff. It was the plaintiffs claim in the foreign proceedings that the defendant herein was a guarantor in the relevant transaction. The plaintiff claims that the foreign suit has been decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to claim on the basis of the decree, subject, however to the restrictions as recognized in Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The present application has been filed for summary judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court. A preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the defendant that the application is not maintainable since it does not answer to the description of the claims which are amenabletoRule1ofsuchChapter.Rule 1 makes the provisions of the Chapter applicable to suits of two classes.3. Clause (A) enumerates four cases where the Rule would be applicable if the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the def...
Sk. Sultan Ahmed. Vs. the Chairman, Board of Wakf’s and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Mr Deb Kumar Sen, advocate, for the petitioner. Ms Sampa Sarkar, advocate, for the State. Mr K.J. Yusuf, advocate, for the Board of Wakf. Mr L.C. Behani, senior advocate, with Ms S. Parmar and Mr Subhojit Dan, advocates, for the third respondent. 2. Heard on: March 23, 2011. Judgment on: March 23, 2011. The Court:- The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 9, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue asking the Respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the date of hearing of the pending application forming Annexure P3 may not be fixed and why the petitioner is not required to be heard before the Board; 3. The document marked Annexure P3 and mentioned in the prayer is at p.29 of the petition. It is a copy of an application of the petitioner dated March 2, 2009 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Wakf, West Bengal. He made the application requesting the Chief Executive Officer ...
icici Bank Limited. Vs. Limtex (India) Limited.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. These two applications are at the instance of the defendant and are directed against the order nos.26 and 28 both dated July 19, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No.2569 of 2008 and in Title Suit No.1887 of 2008 respectively thereby rejecting applications under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. 2. Since identical questions of law are involved in the two matters, these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am discussing the case under C.O. No.2804 of 2010 first. 3. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit for a decree of declaration that the transaction dated November 7, 2006 and the credit arrangement letter dated October 31, 2006 and its extension dated October 30, 2007 between the parties hereto are illegal, null and void and not enforceable by either party, perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction directing the defendant to credit in the plaintiffs current account with ICICI B...
Malay Kumar MisrA. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. In spite of service no one appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner challenged the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting him to appear in the interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher to be held on 6.12.2009. 3. The facts briefly stated is that the selection process was initiated in the year 2006 for filling up the post of the assistant teacher in the various primary schools set up within the district of Purulia. The writ petitioner, though eligible for such post, was not permitted to participate in the selection process as his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange . Challenging such action the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP No. 28825 (w)/06 in this court which was disposed of on 29.12.2006 permitting the writ petitioner to appear for the interview to be held on 31.12.2006 or any other date subsequent thereto. The said selection process could not be completed due to various proceedings pending before this c...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »