Court : Kolkata
1. Challenge is to the order no.55 dated August 21, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.249 of 2000 thereby disposing an application filed by the plaintiff for lowering the amount of penalty in respect of impounding of a document. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.35 of 2003 against the petitioners before the learned Civil Jude (Senior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction etc. 3. The petitioners entered an appearance in the said suit and they are contesting the said suit. In course of dealing in the suit, the learned Trial Judge observed that the plaintiff did not pay adequate stamp duty for the agreements and as such directed the local Collector for impounding the relevant agreements. 4. The Collector valued the property of the suit and determined the amount to be paid for impounding the documents. Subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. Challenge is to the order no.26 dated April 17, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Midnapore in Other Suit No.46 of 2004 thereby rejecting an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. 2. The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Other Suit No.46 of 2004 against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before the learned Munsifs, 2nd Court, Midnapore for a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners entered an appearance and they filed a written statement. The suit proceeded in usual course and it is at the stage of peremptory hearing. 3. Previously, the petitioners instituted a suit being Title Suit No.191, 1991 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Midnapore against the opposite parties for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property, eviction and also for permanent injunction over the selfsame property. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. Challenge is to the order dated August 30, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Purulia in Misc. Appeal No.28 of 2008 thereby reversing the order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia, in Title Suit No.138 of 2008. 2. This application has been filed by the plaintiff. He filed a suit being Title Suit No.138 of 2008 against the opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia praying for the following reliefs: - (a) A decree for declaration that the defendant is not the legally elected Purodha Pramukha of Amanda Marga and he has got no legal right to declare himself as the Purodha Pramukha of Ananda Marga and to hold the office of Purodha Pramukha is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from functioning as the Purodha Pramukha of Ananda Marga, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated February 6, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta in S.C.C. Suit No.159 of 2007 thereby allowing an application dated January 14, 2010 filed by the judgment debtor. 2. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted the said suit against the opposite party under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta praying for recovery of possession of the premises-in-suit as described in schedule of the plaint. The opposite party, brother of the plaintiff was allowed to stay in the suit premises as a licensee and upon revocation of the license, he failed to deliver possession of the demised premises in favour of the plaintiff and so, the application under Section 41 of the said Act was filed. 3. The opposite party entered an appearance in the said suit and filed his written statement denying the mater...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1) This revisional application has been filed by Ananta Bhowmik, the de-facto complainant in Balurghat police station case no. 53 of 1999 dated 11.2.1999 challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgement and order of acquittal dated 22.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No. 25/2001 (Sessions Trial No. 11/01) whereby the opposite parties/accused were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2) That Balurghat police Station Case No. 53/99 dated 11.2.1999 was initiated by the petitioner against the opposite parties alleging therein that Amita Mondal, daughter of de-facto complainant Ananta Mondal was given marriage with opposite party no. 2 Dilip Mondal in the year 1991. In their wedlock, one female child was born. After birth of the said female child Amita was subjected to cru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. Both the Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1988 and the Government Appeal No.14 of 1988 are directed against a judgment dated 21st January,1988 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nadia, 1st Court Krishnagar, in Sessions Trial No.2 of January,1987 corresponding to Sessions Case No.23 of November, 1983(State versus Anil Haldar and five others) by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charge under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code; the accused Souren Biswas was found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the rest of the five accused persons were convicted of the said offence. 2. After hearing the convicts he sentenced the convicts to imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The State preferred the GA No.65 of 1988 against the order of acquittal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The petitioners approached this Court praying for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner no.1 is the father and the petitioner no.2 is the son. Accusation against them amongst others has been made by the wife of the petitioner no.2 under Section 498A, 406, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainant Sangeeta was married to the petitioner no.2 on 1st March 2008. 2. The marriage was duly consummated. After having lived together for some time the husband/petitioner no.2 and his parents demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakh. It is alleged that in order to ensure the happiness of the complainant her parents had already given a sum of Rs.2 lakhs together with 10 bharis of gold, furniture, utensils and household goods but that allegedly did not satisfy the greed of the accused persons. 3. They demanded a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs. When the demand was not met ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The present application is filed for the review of the judgement dated 27.07.2007 passed in F. A. No. 10 of 2005 dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/ appellant against the judgement and decree of dismissal dated 15.06.2004 passed in Title Suit No. 2044 of 1997 by the learned Judge, 10th Court City Civil Court, Calcutta. 2. In the Court below the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 2044 of 1997 praying for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant/ opposite party to remove and/or dismantle the staircase on the common passage at the cost of the defendant as per the terms of settlement in a compromise decree passed by this Hon’ble Court in a Partition Suit No. 646 of 1960. 3. One Sephali Patra filed the above suit against one Lilabati Dashi for partition of premises no. 63, Shyambazar Street, formerly known as no. 111/1 Shyambazar Street, in the Original Side of this Hon’ble Court. The said Lilab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. Though this case has a long chequered history, but presently it will be suffice to note that the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated by the Managing Committee of the Behala Shyamasundari Vidyapith against the Headmistress of the said school namely the petitioner herein in 1995 has not yet been concluded despite direction was given by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 5th October, 2005 in APOT No. 346 of 2005 for conclusion of the said proceeding by 31st December, 2005 by a new enquiry officer. 2. The time limit which was so fixed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceeding was subsequently extended by an order passed by the said Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 1st March, 2006, whereby a further extension was granted for a period of two months on condition that the school pays the full sala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The answers to the common questions that have arisen in these three matters may decide the fate of a clutch of matters where arbitral awards have been put into execution before this court. 2. Though every matter should be dealt with on its merits, the larger picture cannot be lost sight of. These three execution applications cannot be seen in isolation. The decree-holder in each case is a finance company. Two of the awards have been passed by the same arbitrator. 3. Over the last few months there has been a proliferation of execution proceedings filed by finance companies for implementation of arbitral awards. In most cases the finance company would have granted facilities for the acquisition of a vehicle or an agricultural equipment or an industrial implement. Generally, the agreements would be in the nature of hire-purchase transactions where monthly rentals would be payable over a pe...
Tag this Judgment!