Kolkata Court April 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.
Cooch Behar Kshatriya Society and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Thakur and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cooch Behar in Title Suit No.9 of 2007thereby rejecting an application under order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit being T.S. No.9 of 2007 against the opposite parties for recovery of possession of the suit proprerties as described in the schedule of the plaint against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division).The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing an written statement. The issues have been framed. The suit was at the stage peremptory hearing. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed an application for local investigation by appointing an Amin Commissioner contending, inter alia, that the land possessed by the defendants separately should be investigated, so that the appropriate reliefs might be passed...
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Controller of Patents and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. By this appeal the appellant seeks to set aside the order dated 30th June, 2010. The case of the appellant is that Five Star Industries was engaged by it to prepare a sketch for containers. Such sketch was delivered to it in August, 2005, thereafter a quotation was submitted by the said manufacturer to the appellant for manufacture of moulds. 2. This was at a time when one Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat was in its employment. Therefore, he was aware of the design at the time of its creation. The said Mr. Saraswat resigned from the appellant company in 2006 and thereafter joined the respondent company. Such design was disclosed to Mr. Saraswat in confidence as he was one of the Directors of the appellant. By virtue of his position he was well-aware of the design and on resignation has used such design for the respondent company which has come to light only on the application filed for cancellation under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefi...
Aditya MalhotrA. Vs. Namrata MalhotrA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. These two applications are directed against the Order No.53 dated January 15, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 8 th Court, Alipore in T.S. No.62 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application for interim maintenance.2. Since the two applications have arisen out of the common order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.758 of 2007 first. C.O. No.758 of 20073. This application has been preferred by the defendant husband in a suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The wife/opposite party herein instituted the suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance for herself and her twin daughters contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rights & rituals in Kolkata. The parties to the marriage resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand). They were blessed with twin daughters ...
Bithal D Mundra and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The provision of the Companies Act, 1956, which is under consideration in this application is Section 633(2). It reads as follows: 633(2) Where any such officer has reason to apprehend that any proceeding will or might be brought against him in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust, he may apply to the High Court for relief and the High Court on such application shall have the same power to relieve him as it would have had if it had been a Court, before which a proceeding against that officer for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust had been brought under sub-section (1). 2. This Act, elsewhere provides for numerous acts and duties to be done by the company and its officers and registers, returns, statements of accounts, other records and documents to be maintained by them. Breach of any obligation is visited by punishment. 3. When such prosecution is apprehended, any officer may under Section 633(2) apply t...
Debuttar Estate of the Deity Sitapati Ram Chandra Jew. Vs. Kaushal Kis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. In this application under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, the Shebait of Deity Sitapati Ram Chandra Jew has sought leave to sell a property at 7, Princep Lane, Calcutta 700 012 that stands in the name of the Deity. The Shebait says that the property yields no income to the Deity and that it has been completely encroached upon by trespassers who do not pay any occupancy charges. The Shebait says that the Deity is housed elsewhere on S. N. Banerjee Road and is not at the Princep Lane property. 2. Upon the petition being moved, advertisements were required to be published inviting objections from any person to the order that was sought. Some of the occupants at premises no.7, Princep Lane have appeared and have objected only on the ground that they are in occupation of the property and would be seriously jeopardized if such property is sold. 3. An advertisement has also been issued inviting offers for sale of the property. An initial offer of Rs.55 lakh was ...
Narendra Nath Roy. Vs. Phani Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of a pre-emtee and is directed against the order dated May 30, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Track Court, Alipurduar in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2006 thereby reversing the order dated November 27, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004. 2. The opposite party no. 1 herein instituted an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar and the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004. 3. The opposite no. 1 stated, inter alia, that he has adjacent for land. The petitioner is a stranger purchaser in respect of the land under pre-emption. No notice was issued upon him. He is also a co-sharer in respect of the land transferred to the stranger purchaser i. e. the petitioner. For that reason, he has claimed pre-emption of the land in case. The petitioner resisted ...
Niranjan Bar. Vs. Nirmal Bar and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.42 dated December 15, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2 nd Court, Basirhat in Title Suit No.76 of 2004. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit against the defendants praying for a decree or confirmation of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basirhat. In that suit, the defendant / petitioner herein is contesting by filing a written statement. The issues have been framed. The plaintiffs evidence had been closed and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the defendant. At that state, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. That application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the proposed amendment is necessary for the disposal of the suit and that if allowed, it will not change the nature and character ...
M/S. Soorajmall Nagarmall. Vs. Sri Pramod Kr. Shah.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff and the father of the defendant entered into a partnership business and following the death of the defendants father, the defendant first attempted to hold himself out as a partner of such other firm and subsequently as proprietor thereof. 2. G.A.No.4012 of 2004 is the plaintiffs principal interlocutory application filed immediately after the institution of the suit. Upon the defendant apparently changing his stand from claiming to be a partner of the other firm to being the proprietor thereof, the plaint relating to suit was permitted to be amended. G.A.No.2061 of 2005 is the subsequent application of the plaintiff on similar lines as the first but by bringing on record the subsequent events and incorporating the amendment. 3. The plaintiff and the father of the defendant apparently set up a partnership firm by the name of Shree Mahabir Estate Company. The dispute now is as to an immovable property of considerable size at 4, Salkia School Roa...
Amitava Ganguly. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that in an identical petition before the Delhi High Court, it was directed that insecticides be got examined by an independent laboratory and that may assist this Court in arriving at a decision as to whether the drugs supplied by the respondent no.9 is effective for getting rid of mosquitoes. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.9 has no objection to make available the sample of VectoBac 12 AS larvicide in spite of the fact that two reports from the laboratory of the State are favourable to his client. Still in order to satisfy the effectiveness of his product, he is ready to get them tested by any laboratory of repute. 3. It will be proper that the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General suggest the name of the laboratory to which the product can be sent for examination and report. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that within a weeks time he will furnis...
Adhikar. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. Heard learned Counsel. The petitioner claims to be a NGO agitating the rights of the staff employed by the respondent Coal Mines for Watch and Ward duty. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Chief Labour Commissioner by Notification dated 20 th September, 2010 has revised the rate of Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for employees employed in Watch and Ward duties. 2. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent Coal Mines, Eastern Coalfields Limited have failed to oversee the payment of minimum wages and revised VDA to be paid by the respondents contractors to their labourers/employees. 3. It will be proper that the petitioner approaches the Labour Commissioner in the matter and agitate its grievance on behalf of the Watch and Ward staff employed by Eastern Coalfields authorities through their contractors, if at all the petitioner is authorised to do so in law, as the employees may have their own trade union/association to ventilate their grievance....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »