Kolkata Court July 2011 Judgments
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Chhabirani Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. This application at the behest of the petitioner/insurance company throws a challenge to the order dated 26 th February, 2007 in Money Execution Case No. 1 of 2005 rejecting a prayer for review of the award dated 31 st August, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 2 nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 2 of 2004 116/1999. 2. The case of the petitioner/insurance company is that while disposing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tribunal passed award directing that the respondent/claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 4,000,00/- from the petitioner/insurance company. It is the contention of the learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner that in the said award the tribunal has, inter alia, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said mini truck being No. WB-33/0881, resulting in the death of the victim Madhusudan Kar. Inspite of recording such...
Tag this Judgment!Maya BhaktA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. This application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pertaining to an order dated 26.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah whereby the prayer of the petitioner, who happens to be the defacto complainant of the Bagnan Police Station Case No.125 of 2009 dated 20.5.2009 under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. for further investigation into the case was rejected. 2. The petitioner herein filed one F.I.R. with Bagnan Police Station alleging therein that his son viz., Suprabhat Bhakta was murdered by the three accused persons named in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., names of witnesses were mentioned categorically. The I.O. of the case on completion of investigation filed one charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the I. P. C. against the persons named as accused in the F.I.R. The defacto complainant had taken out one application in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah alleging therein that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Trustees House of Prayer and Good News Vs. Banarasi Prasad Gu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated. 24.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Second Court, Sealdah in Title suit No. 157 of 2006 by which an application for dismissal of the suit being not maintainable is rejected. 2. By executing and registering a deed of lease the defendant / petitioner demised unto predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff / Opposite Party all that a flat measuring an area of 1942 Sq fit on the third floor at premises No. 16, Beniapukur Road, Calcutta-700014 for a period of 30 years commencing from the date of handing over the possession which would be handed over upon completion of the construction of the third floor. 3. It is alleged in the plaint that the construction of the third floor is complete but the defendant / opposite party is not handing over the possession in terms of the registered deed of lease. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the relief sought for in the plaint of the said Title Suit No. 157/2006 by th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Keya Dey (Nee Das). Vs. Smt. Sibani Rakshit and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. These two applications have arisen out of the same order and as such, both are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, now I am discussing the C.O. No.3335 of 2007. C.O. No.3335 of 2007:- 2. This revisional application is directed against the order dated April 24, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 4 th Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1238 of 2003 thereby rejecting the prayer of the learned Receiver for initiation of legal proceedings against the illegal occupiers. 3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1238 of 2003 against the defendant / opposite party before the City Civil Court, Calcutta for declaration, injunction, cancellation of documents, other reliefs etc. The defendants are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs filed an application for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the premises in suit and a Receiver was appointed as per order of this Hon’ble Court. The Receiver is functioning. Thereafter, the receiver fil...
Tag this Judgment!Provat Kumar Paul at Nader Chand Paul. Vs. Nimai Chand Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This application is directed against the Order No.79 dated March 17, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambagh in Misc. Execution Case No.3 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application dated January 14, 2010 filed by the decree-holder. 2. The petitioner obtained an award on partition of family properties by way of an arbitration award dated December 26, 2000 against the opposite parties. For execution of the said award, the petitioner filed an application for execution and the said application has been numbered into Misc. Execution Case No.3 of 2002. The award is to be passed on a Stamp Paper of Rs.150/- at the time of passing the award in the year 2000. When the matter was detected, the petitioner deposited Rs.150/- as Stamp Duty by filing the non-judicial stamp. Subsequently, the learned Executing Court directed that the said award was to be impounded. Accordingly, impounding was made and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1500/- as penalty. Thereafter, the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Tarjen Mondal Vs. Shri Prithiraj Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against an order no. 33 dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior division), 1st Court, Contai in Title Suit no. 32 of 2006. 2. The plaintif/petitioner filed a suit for declaration of the title and permanent injunction. It is contended by the petitioner in the plaint of the said Title Suit no 32 of 2006 that on the basis of the unregistered amicable family settlement/partition one of the original owner namely Kailash possessed ‘Ka’ schedule property and upon the death of the said Kailash the property devolved upon his widow and three sons who subsequently sold the property to one Prabhabati. 3. Upon the death of Prabhabati her two sons namely Chittaranjan and Vimcharan executed a deed of exchange amongst themselves and the suit property came to be possessed and owned by Chittranjan and after his death his son namely Tarjen is occupying the same. 4. The defendant/opposite parties disputed the said contention of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Dependra Nath Basu Vs. Eastern Railways and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against an order no. 2 dated 3.1.2007 passed by the learned District Judge Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 320 of 2006 by which an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the maintainability of a single appeal is rejected.2. Before adverting to the point taken by the petitioner brief facts are necessary to be spelt out. The petitioner filed Title suit no. 44 of 2006 for declaration that the opposite parties cannot dispossess him in respect of a hoarding, glow sign and kiosks without due process of law and that the agreement between the petitioner and the opposite parties is to be renewed on the prayer of renewal and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the right of the petitioner to display the advertisement from the said hoarding, glow sign and kiosks as described in the schedule to the plaint.3. An application for injunction is taken out by the petitioner in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Chowdhury Vs. the District Judge Malda and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The writ petitioner claimed that he belongs to the Schedule Caste community and he obtained a Certificate to that effect in 1997. In 1992 he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk under the District Judgeship of Malda. The petitioner says that since he did not have his caste certificate at the time of joining the said post he could not mention the same in his application. 2. In the year 2002 a gradation list was published to which the writ petitioner raised objection but the list as already published was not interfered with. Then on November 13, 2009 another gradation list was published by which 12 Lower Division clerks were promoted temporarily to the post of the Upper Division clerks. Under the said gradation list the writ petitioner was given the first vacancy as a Schedule Caste candidate with effect from 1 st February 2008. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division clerk, worked for sometime and got his salary admissible to the post promoted. 3. On November 25,...
Tag this Judgment!Jangli Bitkel and ors. Vs. Smt. Gita Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. At the very outset it should be recorded that no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party when the matter was taken up for hearing. The revisional application was directed to be proceeded ex parte. 2. This revisional application is directed against Order No. 99 dated 19-03- 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 2930 of 2000 by which an application for addition of parties was rejected. 3. The petitioners along with one Subhas Bitkel, since deceased, filed eviction suit against the Opposite Party under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 4. The Opposite Party is contesting the said suit by filing the written statement. 5. During the pendency of the suit the said Subhas Bitkel, since deceased, plaintiff No. 2, died intestate on 10.11.2008 leaving behind his widow Smt. Saraswati Bitkel, two major sons i.e. Binod Bitkel and Ranjit Bitkel, one minor son i.e. Sankar Bitkel and a minor daughter Bhagyasree Bitkel as his heirs an...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Shahbaz Alam and anr. Vs. M.H. Bhiwarawalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 (hereafter the landlords) had inducted as tenant one Abdul Wahab (since deceased) (hereafter the tenant) in respect of a room on the ground floor of premises no. 13, Bow Street, Kolkata at a monthly rental of Rs.75/-, payable according to English calendar month. A suit for eviction of the tenant and recovery of khas possession of the suit room followed at the instance of the landlords. It was registered as Ejectment Suit No. 154 of 2000. The suit was contested by the tenant. In course of trial, two witnesses testified in support of the defence case, - DW-1 being the tenant himself and DW-2, one of the sons of the tenant, Md. Shahnawaz, the proforma opposite party no. 3 (hereafter Shahnawaz). In his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the tenant stated that he was running business of raw papers from the suit room. Shahnawaz in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that the tenant was “dealing in raw paper business of selling and purchasing f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »