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.
Shyam Kutir Residency Owner’s Association. Vs. Bluechip Estates ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the applicant and is directed against the order no.50 dated January 25, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.50 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2.The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.50 of 2007 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants / opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations raised in the plaint. Thereafter, the applicant being a registered Association of apartment owners filed an application for addition of party in the said suit and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the que...
Kanika Biswas and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 16,2011 are seeking the following principal relief: “(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent police authorities to implement the Order dated 02-08-2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baruipur, in Title Appeal No.32 of 2009.” 2. Relying on the decision in P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 501, counsel submits that since the police have not implemented the order of the Civil Court the petitioners are entitled to approach the High Court under art.226. 3. In my opinion, nothing in the decision cited to me applies to the case of the petitioners. The order of the Civil Court is not that the police should do something. If the order of the Civil Court has created any right of the petitioners and the private respondents are infringing such rights, in my opinion, instead of appr...
Nityananda Saha Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 15, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent police authorities more particularly the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 to conduct an investigation into the alleged misdeeds committed by the respondents nos. 5,6,7 and 8 and to submit a report before this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Mr Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner sought to be ejected from his house by his daughter-in-law has submitted a complaint to the officer in charge of the police station concerned on May 2, 2010. Inspite of the complaint the officer in charge has failed and neglected to take steps against the daughter-in-law. 3. According to Mr Bhattacharjee, in view of the Division Bench decision he is relying on, the petitioner is entitled to approach the High Court under art.226 straight seeking a mandamus commanding the officer in charge of the polic...
Samiran Dey. Vs. Swapan Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Burdwan in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2002 (S.T. No. 32 of 2003) thereby acquitting the accused-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite parties”) from the charges under Sections 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, being the defacto-complainant of the case, has come up with this application for revision challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment impugned on the following grounds: (1) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective; (2) that the learned Court failed to consider the settled principles of law in the matter of considering the statement made by the P.W. 1 vis-à-vis the First Information Report; (3) that the learned Trial Court failed to assign any reason as to w...
Prasad Maity. Vs. Krishnapada Mondal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. The defendant in a money suit is the petitioner in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution. He seeks to question the legality and/or propriety of order dated March 1, 2011 passed by the learned trial Judge whereby he declined to impound an agreement for sale dated March 5, 2007 on the ground that the suit was not for enforcement of the agreement but for realization of money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and, thus, proceeded to admit the same in evidence. 2. The plaint case is that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of an immovable property measuring 06 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant had received Rs. 2,70,000/- as advance on March 5, 2007 and it was agreed by and between the parties that the balance consideration of Rs. 40,000/- would be paid to the defendant within November 30, 2008, whereafter the defendant would execute the sale deed within ...
Sukul Murmu Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. By this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks to set aside the orders dated 8th February, 2010 and 5th April, 2010 passed by the prescribed authority and appellate authority. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was lodged under Section 213A of the 1973 Act. The petitioners being one-third (1/3rd ) of the members of the Gram Pranchayat constituted a group and were entitled to protection under sub-section (b) of the second proviso of Section 213(1)(b) of the 1973 Act. Filing of one complaint will evidence that the petitioners as members of the Gram Pranchayat, as a group gave up their membership and there was no violation under Section 213 (a) (i). An objection was filed by the petitioners and an order passed by the prescribed authority on 8th February 2010. An appeal was filed from the said order which appeal was disposed of by order dated 5th April 2010. 3. Reliance is placed on AIR 1967 SC 1211, AIR 1987 SC 57 and 2002 2 CLJ 197. 4. Although three of the petitioners have...
ReazuddIn Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad in M.R. Case No. 100 of 1999 (T.R. 74 of 1999). 2. The petitioner, the husband of the opposite party no. 2, Janera Bibi, has come up with this revisional application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad, in the aforementioned case granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the tune of Rs.750/- per month in favour of the wife/opposite party, on the following grounds: (1) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective and came to a wrong finding as to the fact that the petitioner was not the husband of the opposite party at the relevant point of time; (2) that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the factum of mar...
Kanchan Chowdhury. Vs. Bakul Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2011
1. Order dated September 16, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Ranaghat, Nadia rejecting an application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) filed in connection with T.S. No.114 of 2006 is questioned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. On perusal of the plaint it appears that the defendant, the brother of the plaintiff had approached her to execute a power of attorney in his favour so that even in the absence of the plaintiff, he could take effective steps on her behalf in connection with a partition suit initiated by them against other co-sharers, which is pending in a Court at Krishnagar, District Nadia. The plaintiff, it is claimed, is an illiterate lady who any how is able to sign. She had signed certain pages of a written instrument which she thought was the power of attorney, on the instruction of the defendant as well as a clerk. She had also been to a stud...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›