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.
Mr. Ravi Saberwal Vs. Saturday Club Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-2011
1. Going by the names of the subscribers to the memorandum of association of the first defendant club, this court may have some excuse in taking interest in matters pertaining to it; yet that can be no reason to give a go-by to the principle that civil courts should leave the management of a company to its members and office-bearers, more so if it is a social club. Five barristers and two solicitors got together in 1909 to set up the Saturday Club and had their agreement witnessed by two other barristers and another solicitor. 2. The suit is by the president and two other members of the general committee of the club challenging their temporary suspension from the club. The reliefs claimed in the suit also call upon the court to ratify certain decisions relating to the club’s affairs taken at the instance of the plaintiffs and in which they betray considerable personal interest. At the interlocutory stage, however, the argument has been confined to the decision of the club to susp...
Milan Kumar Basu Vs. Samir Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff / appellant and is directed against the order dated January 24, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, 5th Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No.105 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff/appellant/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.319 of 1980 against the opposite party and another (defendant no.1) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court Howrah praying for a decree for recovery of possession of the premises in suit, mesne profits and other reliefs. In that suit, the defendant no.1 entered an appearance, but he did not contest the said suit. The defendant no.2 / opposite party herein is contesting all along. The suit was dismissed on contest. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.105 of 2005. In that appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the C.P.C. praying for ex...
Siba Prasad Saha Vs. Gouranga Mohan Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. The petitioner is the first defendant in Title Suit No.88/2007, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, instituted by the first opposite party (hereafter the plaintiff). It is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. By an order passed by the learned Judge on November 17, 2009, the suit was to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner and the second defendant since they had refused summonses when tendered and were not contesting it by entering appearance. However, the plaintiff was directed to take steps for service on the other defendants. 3. It was at this stage that the petitioner filed an application. It was alleged therein that he had no notice of institution of the suit and was, therefore, unable to enter appearance. He had heard in the locality that the plaintiff had instituted a civil suit against him and several others, where after he contacted a learned advocate who filed an application for informat...
Mukul Mitra Vs. Chinmoy Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. This application is directed against the Order No.19 dated March 11, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.83 of 2009 thereby accepting the written statement filed by the defendants / opposite parties at the belated stage. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.83 of 2009 against the opposite parties for eviction, recovery of possession, damages and main profits etc. on the ground of reasonable requirement and guilty of causing, waste and damages. 2. In that suit, the defendants / opposite parties entered an appearance and they filed an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997 and the application under Section 7(2) is still pending. The defendants / opposite parties herein prayed for time to file a written statement from time to time and it was granted. Ultimately, the written statement was filed by the plaintiff along with show-cause beyond the statutory period and th...
Eastern Trade Syndicate Vs. Paschim Medinipore Zilla Parishad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated September 18, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghatal in Misc. Appeal No.6 of 2007 arising out of the Title Suit o.73 of 2007 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal, thereby rejecting the prayer for ad interim injunction. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.73 of 2007 for declaration and permanent injunction and he filed an application for temporary injunction. 2. The said application was moved before the learned Trial Judge, but the learned Trial Judge did not grant any ad interim order of injunction holding that an ad interim order of injunction could not be granted in absence of the respondent nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.6 of 2007 and he filed an application for temporary injunction praying for ad interim order of injunction also. 3. That application was ...
Haridhan Roy Chowdhury Vs. Biswa Sekhar Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for eviction, registered as Title Suit No.97 of 2008, pending on the file of the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 (hereafter the plaintiff). 2. An application under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereafter the Act) had been filed by the petitioners praying for adjudication as to whether relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and them existed or not and in the event the answer be in the affirmative, to adjudicate the quantum of arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises. An application under Section 17(2A) of the Act was also filed by the petitioners praying for necessary order permitting them to pay arrears of rent, if any, by easy monthly instalments. 3. It appears from the application under Section 17(2) of the Act filed by the petitioners that rent in respect of the suit premises was pa...
Shyamali Ghosh Vs. Swapna Palit and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated April 9, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.776 of 2008 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint. The short fact necessary for the purpose of this case is that the plaintiff / opposite party no.1 herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.776 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is contesting the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing both the sides and on consideration of the materials on record I find that the proposed amendment is nothing but to subsequent events that happened after filing of the suit. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property which is a garage by virtue of a deed of...
Lekha Duary Vs. Ranjit Rana and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the opposite party no.1 and is directed against the Order No.42 dated May 29, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Uluberia in L.R. Case No.42 of 2006 under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955. 2. The short fact is that the petitioner / opposite party herein instituted a case being L.R. Case No.42 of 2006 under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the petitioner and other opposite party before the appropriate Court. He has claimed pre-emption on the ground that he is a co-sharer of the plot in case and that the opposite party no.1 / petitioner herein is a stranger to the plot in case and all of a sudden on August 17, 2002, the petitioner herein came to the plot in case for fishing. At that time, the opposite party raised objection and he knew that the petitioner had purchased the entire share of the opposite party no.2 of the said case and that an inflated price had been mentioned in...
Shree Krishna Apartment Private Ltd. Vs. U.K. Developers Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment dated January 15, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.495 of 2010 thereby dismissing the said misc. appeal arising out of the Title Suit No.2517 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the plaintiff / petitioner herein filed a suit being Title Suit No.2517 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Alipore for declaration, injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and prayed for ad interim order of injunction. 3. The learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for ad interim injunction at the initial stage and issued a show-cause notice upon the opposite party. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the misc. appeal being ...
Union of India Vs. Ajabul Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-2011
ORDER :1. The Court :- The tenth claim of an arbitral award has come up for consideration on remand. On an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the entirety of the award was upheld. An appeal carried from such order affirmed the award except in respect of the amount awarded under the tenth head of claim. 2. The Appellate Court order of October 3, 2007, inter alia, found that the contractor’s claim on account of idle labour that had been found good to the extent of Rs.9.7 lakh was without basis and required reconsideration. The Appellate Court observed that notwithstanding the extent of interference under the 1996 Act having been curtailed, the award of about Rs.9.7 lakh on account of idle labour “pricked” the conscience of the Appellate Court and the matter was sent down for reconsideration by the Arbitrator. 3. In course of the Appellate Court order, it was observed that since the original period of work was 30 days and si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »