Kolkata Court June 2011 Judgments
Moula Boz Sk. and anr. Vs. Md. Abdul Mannan and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. These two applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the two applications have arisen out of the identical matter. 2. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.2028 of 2006. C.O. No.2028 of 2006:- 3. This revisional application is directed against the order no.55 dated February 24, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh in Misc. Case No.137 of 1988 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the written statement. 4. The pre-emptors / petitioners herein instituted an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption in respect of the lands in case against the opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh and the said application was registered as misc. case no.137 of 1998. Previously, the petitioners filed the said application for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. But after amendment of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955, the petitioners sought for amendment of the plaint and in...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Mondal (Sarkar) and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Bunch of writ applications including the present one have been filed either by the organizing teachers or by the managing committee of the organizing school for issuing the writ of summons commanding the respondent authorities to act in terms of the direction made in the Division Bench judgment dated 12th December 1996 of this court in case of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1997(1) CLJ 165. 2. Providing education to the tender children is one of the fundamental duty casted upon the State/Government under the Constitution of India. Even prior to the existence of the Constitution of India providing education at the primary level was one of the paramount consideration before the sovereign which led the sovereign to enact Bengal Local Self Government Act of 1885. However, the provision relating to primary education was taken away from the said act of 1885 and came to be vested upon enacting the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act...
Tag this Judgment!Banarashilal Gupta Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala PiparA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated December 1, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, 2 nd Bench, Presidential Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.474 of 2002 thereby rejecting the application for local inspection. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment against the petitioner in respect of the premises prescribed in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Judge, 2 nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, on the ground of reasonable requirement. The petitioner is contesting the said suit. The opposite party filed an application for local inspection and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application was filed. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the suit for ejectment has been instituted by the plaintiff / opposite party herein on the ground of reasonable requirement. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhu Nath MetiA. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. On 25th January, 2010, the Managing Committee of Kelomal Santoshini High School in the District of Purba Medinipur, adopted a resolution proposing to hold a proper and regular disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner who is the suspended Headmaster of the said school. Pursuant to the said resolution a charge-sheet dated 17th April, 2010 containing several charges was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the Secretary of the said school within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of this charge-sheet with a rider that if he does not submit his written statement of defence within the specified period, the school authority will hold an inquiry against him on receipt of the Board’s approval at the first stage. 2. The petitioner felt aggrieved and as such he filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 10579(W) of 2010 before this Court challenging legality and validity of the said charge-sheet issued by the Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Shaw Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 27, 2011 is seeking enforcement of an order dated June 3, 2011 (at p.63) passed in T.S. No.63 of 2011 instituted by him in the 7th Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2. Howrah against the private respondent for declaration and injunction. 3. In the pending suit the petitioner has claimed that using a part of the property he is entitled to enjoy as a tenant, the private respondent, the owner of a neighbouring property, started erecting certain unauthorised constructions. The petitioner filed an application under O.39, Rr.1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Court passed an order dated April 28, 2011 (at p.57) directing the private respondent (the defendant in the suit) to maintain “status quo in respect of its nature, character and possession of the suit property.” 4. Seeking an order directing the officer in charge of Batra police station to enforce the order dated April 28, 2011 the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Christopher Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Smt. Manjit Poddar, an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. The exercise of discretion by the learned Assistant District Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in refusing the application filed by the defendant No.1 for rejection of plaint is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. 2. The opposite party No.1/plaintiff is a purchaser of a flat at Premises No.98, Christopher Road, Kolkata 700046. 3. In or about 17th of November, 2008 the plaintiff instituted a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah against the petitioner/ opposite party No.1 and others., alleging various unlawful acts committed by the defendant Nos.1,2 and 3. 4. The land in question appears to have been purchased by the defendant No.2 and other 53 companies of which the defendant No.2 is the constituted attorney in a proceeding before this Hon’ble High Court being E.O. Suit No.26 of 1989 and by virtue of such purchase, the said defendants became owners of the said property. 5. The said defendant No.2 for self and as constituted...
Tag this Judgment!Margaret Nyss and ors. Vs. Sri Suman Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against the order no. 25 dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sealdah in Title Appeal no. 20 of 2005 by which an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for condonatin of delay in depositing the rent in court is rejected. 2. The opposite party no. 1 along with the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party no. 2 namely Sujay Pal instituted Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners praying for a decree for eviction on various grounds including a ground of reasonable requirement. 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, though appeared in the suit, but did not take any steps for filing an application under section 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 4. Upon the death of the original plaintiff no. 2, namely Sujay Pal, the present opposite party no. 2 was substituted. The original ...
Tag this Judgment!Aftab Ali Saha and ors. Vs. Syed Saidul at Sahidul Islam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Contai, Purba Medinipur in Civil Revision no. 1 of 2007 by which an application for stay of all further proceedings in Title Suit no. 288 of 1997 was rejected. 2. The opposite party no. 2 instituted Title Suit no. 288 of 1997 praying for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of a suit property and also decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and the proforma opposite parties from creating any disturbances in peaceful possession thereof. It is a specific case of the opposite party no. 1 that one Sher Ali Saha was the original owner of the suit property. Upon the death of the said owner the suit property devolved upon his three sons, who thereafter transferred the suit property by executing and registering a deed of conveyance dated 2nd May 1960 in favour of the opposite party no. 1. The petitioner and the proforma oppos...
Tag this Judgment!istupada Pramanik.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment dated 19.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum in Criminal Motoion No.55 of 2009 thereby affirming the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum in Misc. Case No.104 of 2006 on 17.8.2009. 2. The opposite party No.2 Chhabi Pramanik (Dutta) initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained an order of maintenance in her favour to the tune of Rs.400/- per month. That monthly maintenance amount was enhanced time to time on the prayer of Chhabi Pramanik in different proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. She had taken out an application in the Court of the learned Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum under Section 127 of the Cr. P. C. which was registered as Misc. Case No.104 of 2006 praying for enhancement of maintenance allowance. 4. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence adduced...
Tag this Judgment!Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. Both the revisional applications are directed against an order dated. 31st March, 2000 passed by Estate Officer, Calcutta Port Trust in proceeding No. 287/1999 and proceeding No. 308 of 1999 by which applications for setting aside of a notice under section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and recalling of an order dated. 5th November, 2008 passed by the Estate Officer, were dismissed. 2. Before dealing with the points raised by the respective Counsels appearing for the parties, the facts of the instant case is required to be narrated. The estate officer issued notices under section 4 of the Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction shall not pass against it. Pursuant to the same, a proceeding was initiated being proceeding No. 287 / 1999 by the Estate Officer and ultimately an order for eviction was passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner under section 5 of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »