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.
Lakshman Chandra Pakhira and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Pakhira and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This application is directed against the Order No.18 dated August 25, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3 rd Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.73 of 2009 thereby allowing an application for appointment of a handwriting expert. 2. The short fact is that the opposite parties instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.73 of 2009 against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit by entering an appearance. The plaintiffs challenged the deed dated July 17, 1960 contending, inter alia, that late Basudev Pakhira, father of plaintiff no.1 did not execute the said deed. Accordingly, on the prayer of the plaintiffs, a handwriting expert was appointed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant nos.1 to 6. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials ...
Nirendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Md. Malek Mia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated December 22, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cooch Behar in Misc. Appeal No.7 of 2003 thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated July 15, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court Sadar, Cooch Behar in Misc. Case No.1 of 2002. 2. This application is at the instance of the pre-emptors and their case is that they have lands adjoining to the land-inquestion and at such they want to pre-empt the land in question. 3. Accordingly, they filed the pre-emption case before the concerned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the said pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2002 was allowed on contest. The opposite party nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal being Misc. appeal No.7 of 2003 and that misc. appeal was allowed thereby a reversing the order of pre-emption passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the pre-emptors have preferred this revisional applicat...
Shyam Pada Bhowmik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This revisional application has been filed by the defacto complainant in complaint Case No.414C of 2004 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purba Midnapore challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate fixed 17.12.2008 for hearing argument of the parties in stead of further examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. Himangshu Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the defacto complainant had taken out an application drawing the attention of the learned Trial Court that proper question was not put to the accused persons in course of their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that is why he was prejudiced. That prayer was rejected by the learned Trial Court. However, on 15.11.2008 was fixed for further examin...
The Manager (Recovery), Reliance Capital Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken out by the petitioner, the Manager (Recovery), Reliance Capital Ltd., Consumer Finance Division, 1, Shakrespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 071, praying for quashing the proceeding against him in G. R. Case No. 161 of 2009 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. 2. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 filed a petition of complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore alleging therein that the complainant No.1 Ram Gopal Bhoot purchased one Honda City ZX-FXI in the year 2007 from a car dealer at Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. The purchase value was Rs.8,00.000/- including tax. The complainant No.1 made down- payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the dealer and remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was availed by him from the accused No.1, i.e., the petitioner, the Manager (Recovery), Reliance Ca...
Ram Chandra Tiwary Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 18, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates and each one of them to show cause as to why the impugned notice bearing Reference No. 1155/HHEKOL00026072 dated June 8, 2011 issued by the Authorized Officer, India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, being annexure P/7 to this writ petition should not be set aside; cancelled and/or quashed forthwith.” 2. The notice dated June 8, 2011 referred to in prayer (b) is at p.43, and it has been issued by the authorised officer of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, a private company not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Relying on Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2371, Mr Datta appearing for the petitioner has submitted tha...
Trfi Investment Private Limited Vs. Pisces Portfolios Private Limited ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against order dated November 11, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed the application filed by the defendant No.2 for return of the plaint on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A separate application filed by defendant No.2 for the selfsame relief on the ground of separate agreement for exclusion of jurisdiction of this Court was, however, not gone into in view of the fact that the other application has been allowed.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal and at the same time, the defendant No.2 has filed cross-objection thereby alleging that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to further hold that in view of the agreement between the parties, this Court had no territorial jurisdiction.3. Both the aforesaid appeal and the cross-objection were, thus, heard one after ...
Bijoynagar Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Subhas Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2010 passed in CP no. 363 of 2007 by which a company petition for winding up of an appellant company was allowed with cost assessed at 5000 gms. and the Registrar, Original Side was directed to file a complaint against deponent of the company’s affidavit before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction for making a false and frivolous defence before the company court. 2. Before dealing with the respective contentions raised by the parties it would be pertinent to bring on record that the parties before us have reached the settlement and have withdrawn the claim and rival claims so raised before the company court. 3. Since the monitory claim of the petitioning creditor is satisfied, the appellant company had assailed such portion of an order and judgment whereby and whereunder the company court directed the Registrar, Original Side to lodge a complaint before the competent authority against the appellant company for...
Master Arkaprava Basu and anr. Vs. Patha Bhavan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner no.1 is the minor child of the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.1 is a student of Class V of Patha Bhawan School. The said school is a recognized private unaided school imparting Primary or Elementary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education among its students. The said school is a co-education school. Though, the said school does not get grant in aid but it receives dearness allowance from the Government for its teaching and non-teaching staff. Thus, the said school is regarded as a “school” within the meaning of the “school” as defined in Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, with effect from 1st April, 2010, when the said Act came into operation in view of the notification published under Section 1(3) of the said Act. 2. The petitioner who is presently aged about 10+ years and is reading in Class V of the said school is entitled to get the protection unde...
Dharam Pal Beri. Vs. Sri Kishore Kumar Agarwal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated June 15, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5 th Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.7 of 2009 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.7 of 2009 against the petitioner in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of reasonable requirement before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5 th Court, Alipore. The defendant / petitioner is contesting the said suit and he filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 praying for determination of arrears of rent, if any, in respect of the premises in suit. The plaintiff / opposite party herein filed a written objection against that application. 3. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the a...
Numazar Dorab Mehta and ors. Vs. the Assam Company Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. This is an application filed under chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules of this Hon’ble Court. 2. The case of the plaintiff petitioner is that the trustees of the Calcutta Zoroastrian Community’s Religious and Charity Fund, (Zoroastrian Trust) and Olpadvala Memorial Trust, are owners of premises 52, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700 071 (premises) and the buildings thereon. As a lease deed was executed on 17 April, 1984 by the trustees for 21 years in favour of the defendant, on expiry of the lease term the defendant was to vacate the said premises in its possession and for not doing so a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued on 4th December 2006. The said notice was received by the defendant. As no reply was given to the said notice nor steps taken to vacate the said premises C.S. 16 of 2007 was filed. The said suit is maintainable under the 1997 Act as the lease rent per month is in excess of Rs. 10,000. 3. The defence taken by the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »