Kolkata Court June 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.
Kamales Chandra Bour Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
ORDER:1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. After considering the submissions made and upon perusing the instant writ application, it appears that the principal grievance of the writ petitioner is delayed payment of gratuity by the State, upon his superannuation from service on 30th November, 1998. 3. It appears that this matter is squarely covered by a recent decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mohan Ch. Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in W.P. 30264 (W) of 2008 along with several other writ petitions on 14th May, 2009. I am of the view that similar directions can be given in the instant writ petition, as directed by this Court in Mohan Ch. Halder’s case. 4. I, therefore, dispose of the instant writ application by directing the Director of Pension and Provident Fund and Group Insurance to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the gratuity amount to be computed from the date o...
Terai Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Nathmal Kedia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
1. By this application the petitioner seeks inspection of the share register of the respondent no.3. Such order is sought in view of the order of status quo passed and continued by the Appeal Court. 2. Such appeal is pending and in the meantime it has come to know that third parties have taken control and management of the respondent no.3. To ascertain the shareholding pattern this application has been filed and orders sought. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the reason for seeking such direction is to resurrect the contempt application which was dismissed by the Appeal Court. Four percent of the shares are maintained by it and there is no question of transfer of any share. 4. Therefore, this application warrants no interim order. Directions be given for filing of affidavits. Having considered the submissions of the parties as the petitioner prima facie has not been able to make out a case for passing any interim order at this stage no interim order is passed and directions ...
Pradeep Kumar Malhotra and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. These are the two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the Complaint Case No. C - 1950 of 2010 pending before learned 10th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. These two applications are taken up together and heard as those arise out of the same case. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner M/s Orient Investments is an investment partnership firm and since 19.08.05, has been engaged in business of providing financial assistance. In course of business three cheques were issued by the accused persons duly signed with the company seal in the legal and lawful discharge of the liability. In course of business a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was due and the accused company and the directors issued account...
Khokan Chandra Dey Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. These are the two revisional applications arising out of the same proceeding granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month for the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- per month for her minor daughter under Section 125 bearing Misc. Case No. 61/2005. 2. The petitioner/husband has filed the application bearing CRR 686/11 praying for setting aside the order of grating maintenance at the aforesaid rate passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 61/2005 which was affirmed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Howrah in Criminal Motion No. 216 of 2009. 3. The Opposite Party No. 1 herein / wife instituted the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the petitioner/husband herein subjected her to physical and mental torture and refused to maintain her and her child. 4. The Learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record was pleased to grant maintenance at the aforesaid rate wh...
Rima Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
1. This is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was instituted by the de facto complainant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, being BGR Case No. 256/2011 now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is the contention of the petitioner/de facto complainant that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the OP No. 2 herein along with his mother before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore which was registered as Criminal Misc Case No. 766/2011. The said Misc Case was fixed for hearing on 11.02.2011. The said application was rejected being not pressed by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother. 2. By suppressing the fact of rejection of the said application, the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother filed another application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Crimina...
Gandhi Memorial Hospital Department of Health and Family Welfare Vs. T ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2011
PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT, J. This appeal is by the Superintendent, Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Kalyani-Nadia against the judgment and order passed in a case of medical negligence thereby directing the said Gandhi Memorial Hospital to pay compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant for death of his mother because of deficiency in service on the part of the said hospital in the treatment of his mother. The facts of this case are simple and stated hereunder:- The mother of the complainant having felt chest pain at about 7.30 p.m on 29th March 2008 was taken to Santipur State General Hospital where she was attended by an emergency doctor. On the next night she was referred to the Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Kalyani at about 10.45 p.m for better treatment. On the said night she was examined at first in the Emergency Ward and thereafter admitted in a Female Ward. According to the complainant, the attending physician who examined the mot...
Ashok Dandapat and anr. Vs. Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioners and is directed against the order dated August 5, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery TribunalII, Kolkata in S.A. No.303 of 2010 thereby dismissing an application of the petitioners in limine. 2. The short fact is that the petitioners obtained a loan of Rs.9 lakh from the Punjab National Bank, Kharagpore I.I.T. Branch in the year 2004 and 2005 against security, that is, the property of the petitioners under Holding No.10/C/9, Ward No.27 under Kharagpore Municipality, District Paschim Medinipur. The petitioners built a house thereon. 3. The petitioners repaid a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- up to the April 2008. They could not repay the loan more due to the ill health of the petitioner no.1. Then the bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on February 14, 2008 subsequently a notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act on May 3, 2008. The petitioners informed the bank of the fact that the...
Raj Kumar Dadlani Vs. Dr. Smt. Pushpita Sahu (Basu) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
ORDER:1. Challenge is to the Order No.93 dated July 6, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No.409 of 2004 thereby allowing an application for local inspection filed by the plaintiff. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.59 of 1994 for recovery of possession, mesne profit and other reliefs on the ground of reasonable requirement in respect of the premises as described in the Schedule of the plaint against the defendant / petitioner and other opposite parties. 3. The defendant/ petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the defendant / petitioner. At that time, the plaintiff filed an application for local inspection in respect of the premises at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 which belongs to her husband. It may be ment...
Goutam Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, learned advocate undertakes to appear in this matter on behalf of the State-respondents. This Court directs the petitioner to serve a copy of this writ petition upon his junior Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned advocate. 2. Accordingly, a copy of this writ petition has been supplied to Mr. Dutta, learned advocate in Court today. Let me now consider the merit of this writ petition in the facts of the instant case. Pursuant to the prior permission granted by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24- Parganas, the school authority of Dum Dum Motijheel Girls High School (H.S.) initiated a selection process for filling up the vacancy in the post of a Clerk (reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate) sometime in 2008. 3. An advertisement was issued in a daily newspaper on 14th September, 2008 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the said post. Interview of the eligible candidates was taken by the Selection Committee on 11th November, 2008. ...
Gajadhar Prosad Shau and anr. Vs. Sambhunath Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order No.43 dated September 26, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.112 of 2006. The short fact is that the petitioners instituted an application under Section 6(1)(b) and (d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for recovery of possession of the suit premises as described in the Schedule of the application against the opposite party and the said application was treated as Title Suit No.112 of 2006 subsequently. 2. The plaintiffs have contended that they became the owners of the property as described in Schedule ‘A’ and the property as described in Schedule ‘B’ which is part of the Schedule ‘A’ property was let out in favour of the defendant / opposite party at a monthly rent of Rs.43/- payable according to English Calendar Month. The plaintiffs have also contended that they got the property absolutel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »