Kolkata Court July 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.
Alok Dey Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 2, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “(a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents authority more particularly the respondent no. 3 and 5 and their men and agent with the help of respondent no 6 to restrain the private respondents from doing further construction and to demolish the construction made encroaching the land of the Road at Hospital more, Raigunj forthwith.” 2. Counsel submits as follows. Entertaining the petitioner’s application under s.10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 the authority concerned has issued an order asking the private respondents not to erect any further construction using the lands in question, but in violation of the order the private respondents are erecting the constructions. Besides, the authority has not dis...
Km. Sujata Panda at Dipanwita PandA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Both the C.R.R.831 of 2010 filed by Smt. Sujata Panda and the C.R.R.1591 of 2010 filed by Ramkrishna Panda alias Ramkrishna Shastri have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No.131 of 2005. Since both the revisional applications are related to, more or less, same be common issues/questions, both are disposed of by a common order below. 2. Smt. Sujata Panda, the petitioner in C.R.R.831 of 2010 initiated one proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her father, the opposite party Ramkrishna Panda praying for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded monthly maintenance in favour of Smt. Sujata Panda to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with effect from February, 2010. 3. Petitioner, Sujata Panda has come up with this revisional application being C.R.R.831 of 2010 challenging the quantum of...
Arun Kumar Paul. Vs. Alipta Paul.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated April 19, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5 th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.14 of 2001 thereby directing the petitioner to pay alimony at the enhanced rate to the opposite party. 2. The short fact is that the petitioner was married to opposite party in the year 1998 and one child was born in the wedlock. Due to some matrimonial problems, the petitioner filed a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The opposite party entered an appearance and she is contesting the said matrimonial suit. She filed an application claiming maintenance. 3. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony of Rs.600/- per month more, in addition to the alimony already granted in favour of the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the extent of Rs.2200/-, so that the total maintenance would will become Rs.2800/- per month for herself and the child. Being aggrieved by...
Ghanshyam Das Agarwal. Vs. Sumita Devi VarmA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. These two applications are directed against different orders passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005. By the first application being C.O. No.2638 of 2010, the plaintiff has challenged the order nos.44 dated March 25, 2010 and the order no.47 dated May 7, 2010 thereby rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. giving liberty to the plaintiff to file a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The other application is also filed by the plaintiff and is also directed against the order no.52 dated June 22, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Controller, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No.99 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Since, the two applications have arisen out of the same ejectment case and they are very must related to each other, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner instituted the said case against the opposite party for eviction on the ground of...
Amit Srivastav. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Lala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.27 dated September 27, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit o.529 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendant. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.529 of 2008 against one Smt. Gita Srivastava (since deceased), petitioner and the proforma opposite party no.2 for ejectment and damages before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore. The defendants entered an appearance in the said suit and they are contesting the suit by filing a joint written statement controverting the material allegations raised in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of further peremptory hearing and the P.W.1 was being examined on behalf of the plaintiff / opposite party herein. At that time, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement and that application was rejected by the imp...
Md. MohiuddIn and anr. Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 27, 2011 are alleging that for objection of the private respondents CESC could not shift their existing service connection to a new place. 2. Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that if the petitioners want to shift their existing connection to a new place without touching the “B” schedule property mentioned in the plaint of Title Suit No.56 of 2011 (at p.15), then the private respondents have no objection to the proposed shifting. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since in view of an existing interim order of the Civil Court the petitioners cannot use any part of the “B” schedule property mentioned in the plaint on the basis whereof the suit was instituted, there is no question of shifting the existing connection to a new place using any part of the “B” schedule property. 4. In view of the above-noted situation, I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the petit...
Partha Sarathi Upadhyay.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar in C. R. Case No.62 of 2009 whereby the prayer for return of the seized veneer to the petitioner was rejected by the Court. 2. The petitioner has come up with this revisional application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order on the following grounds; a) That the learned Court failed to appreciate the legal proposition and failed to consider the fact that the forwarding report itself discloses that the origin of the produce seized was ascertained as imported timber, i.e., not a produce of the State; b) That the learned Court failed to appreciate the fact that in view of the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959, veneer produced from timber imported under Open General Licence and converted by veneer mills having licence for this purpose will not require any in lieu T. P. for movement; c) That ...
Sribas Chandra Biswas and ors. Vs. Jiban Krishna Biswas.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated April 28, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ranaghat in Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2002 thereby dismissing the said misc. appeal on contest. 2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption against the petitioners in respect of the lands in case on the ground of vicinage and co-sharership and that application was converted into a misc. case being Misc. Case No.99 of 1991. According to the application, the lands in case originally belonged to Kalipada Santra and his two sons, namely, Narendra Nath Santra and Joydeb Santra. After death of Kalipada Santra, the two sons inherited the lands in case. The opposite parties purchased Schedule ‘A’ lands from Joydeb Santra and the heirs of Narendra Nath Santra by a registered deed of sale dated June 6, 1991. The petitioner as a co-sharer of the entire Schedule ‘A’ l...
Sandhya Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. Mr. Guha Thakurata, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 submits that since filing of the application in the year 2008, no effort was made on behalf of the petitioner to move the application. No order of stay is also passed. Adjournments granted freely to the petitioner till this date. 2. This application has been filed praying for setting aside of the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Family Court, Kolkata in Misc. Case No.117 of 2002 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The petitioner herein prayed for maintenance claiming herself as wife of the opposite party. The learned Court dismissed her petition after finding that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. 4. However, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and it appears to me that the petitioner has no interest at all. 5. Seen the photo copy of the order passed in Title Suit No.1170 o...
Bishnupada Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. The legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 21.5.2008 has been challenged in this revisional application by the petitioner, the accused in Dum Dum Police Station Case No.70 dated 1.3.2005 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (G. R. Case No.576 of 2005) pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, lst Court, Barrackpore, 24-Paraganas, North. 2. The short question which has arisen in this revisional application is whether the original money receipts (two) can be allowed to be admitted into evidence in the midst of a trial. 3. Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing or the petitioner and Mr. Rajib Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 as well as the Mr. Souvik Mitter, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/State. 4. The question is no longer res integra because both the provisions under Section 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not covered by Section 173 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »