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.
Smt.Madhabi SahA. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 29th December, 2009 passed by the respondent no. 4, seeks on enquiry regarding the legality of the Ration Card of the private respondent so also to send the petitioner for training for the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM). 2. The case of the petitioner is that the private Respondent no. 9 is the daughter of the Respondent no. 10. For the post of second ANM advertisement was published and application invited for the concerned Sub-Centre. One of the criteria for the appointment was that the candidate would have to be the local resident of the Sub-Centre and in proof of the said criteria the EPIC Card or Ration Card had to be produced. As the Sub-Centre in respect of which the dispute has arisen is in Bablari Gram Panchayet the candidates would have to be the local resident of the said Gram Panchayat. In the panel prepared the petitioner has been placed at serial no. 2 while the private Respondent no. 9 has be...
Ms. Chandy Charan Dass and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bani Basu.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.15 dated August 4, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) nd Court, Sealdah, in Ejectment Suit No.151 of 2008, thereby rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff opposite party herein instituted a suit for eviction, recovery of possession, injunction and other reliefs in respect of the premises as described in the schedule of the plaint against the opposite party on the ground of default, causing damage to the premises, reasonable requirement etc. before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2 nd Court, Sealdah. The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. 3. The defendant filed an application under Section 7 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and that application is still pending. The defendant Company also filed another application under Orde...
Kamal Kumar Maity and ors. Versus. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated May 24, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.25 of 2006 arising out of the Title Suit No.187 of 2004. 2. The plaintiffs / petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.187 of 2004 against the State of West Bengal for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Contai. Summons was duly served upon the State but none appeared on behalf of the State. 3. Accordingly, the suit was decreed ex parte on October 4, 2005. Long time thereafter, on October 17, 2006 the State of West Bengal filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree and that application was registered as Misc. Case No.25 of 2006. The State of West Bengal also filed another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in support of the said misc. case. ...
Dalhousie Properties Ltd. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. Four winding up applications were heard by me for three days, on each day, for sometime. I will deal with the facts of C.P. No. 295 of 2006, one of the four winding up applications where the petitioning creditor is Exhibitors’ Syndicate Ltd. and the Company of which winding up is sought, Dalhousie Properties Ltd. The basic facts in all the four winding up applications are identical. Therefore, the judgment in this application will also be the judgment in the other three, as well.2. FACTS:The facts are most unusual. I wonder if such unusual facts were ever the subject-matter of another winding up application, in the history of this Court. At one point of time there was a famous cinema house by the name of “Uttara Cinema”, in north Calcutta. This cinema was run from properties which were numbered as premises no. 138/2, Bidhan Sarani and 3, Gurucharan Lane, Calcutta. It is quite sometime now that this cinema house has stopped showing cinema.3. On 18th July, 1957...
Naba Kumar Seal. Vs. Supriyo Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No. 71 dated August 25, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 8 th Bench, Calcutta in O.C. No. 13 of 2003 thereby rejecting an application of the plaintiff dated August 18, 2006. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a probate proceeding under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 3. The opposite parties are contesting the said proceeding and as such the probate matter has been converted into the O.C. No.13 of 2003. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their contentions. At the time of argument, the petitioner noticed that though he tendered seven documents but three of them have not been marked exhibits. So, the petitioner filed an application for marking those three left out documents as exhibits on his behalf and that application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Being aggrieved this application has been preferred. 4. ...
Smt. Josi Mandi and ors. Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The revisional application is directed against the order No. 26 dated 01.12.2009 passed by the learned A.D.J., First Court, Paschim Medinipore in M.A.C.C . Case No. 276 of 2006 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application for amendment dated 01.12.2009 filed by the petitioner / claimant on the ground stated in the application. Heard learned Lawyer for the both side. 2. It appears that claimant / petitioner filed an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, as amended praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of death of Ganesh Mandi, husband of petitioner No. 1. In the said application the petitioner initially stated that monthly income of her husband was Rs. 70/- per day and total claim was Rs. 2,50,000/-. By way of amendment the petitioner wanted to introduce that the income of her husband was Rs. 120/- instead of 70/- and wanted to enhance the claim from Rs. 2,50,000/- to 5,00,000/-. 3. The said amendment was strongly opposed by the New I...
Sri Kanai Lal Dey. Vs. Sri Nemai Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Challenge is to the Order No.26 dated January 5, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur, District Bankura in Title Suit No.29 of 2007 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint on contest. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.29 of 2007 against the defendants before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur for partition, injunction and other reliefs. The defendant no.1 is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. 3. The said suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to which the contesting defendant raised objection. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this revisional application. 4. Now, the questio...
Kanailal Chowdhury Vs. Ashok Kumar Chowbey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated 22 nd December, 2006 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 285 of 1998 arising out of Case No. H-5 of 1992, rejecting the review application taken out by the petitioner/respondent pursuant to the direction given by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 19.02.2006 in C.O. No. 3906 of 2006. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : 3. One Kunja Behari Chowbey (the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party/appellant) took out a proceeding before the Thika Controller, Howrah being case No. H-5 of 2006, praying for recording his name as thika tenant in the relevant records under Section 6 of Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981. The learned Thika Controller by order dated 22.12.1992 rejected the said application. 4. Being aggrieved by said order, the said Kunja Behari Chowbey filed a Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Howrah. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Thika Controller for fresh adj...
K K Polycolor India Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated July 19, 2011 is disputing the correctness of a bill dated July 1, 2011 (at p.82) raised by West Bengal Stated Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner willing to go to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee for resolution of the disputes, and pay according to law, needs an interim order from this Court restraining the licensee from disconnecting the supply until the dispute is raised. 3. The 2004 regulations relied on by counsel were superseded by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007. 4. Regulation 3.5 of these regulations entitled the petitioner, disputing the bill, to lodge a complaint with the Grievance Redressal Officer of the licensee and thereafter to lodge an appeal with the Ombudsman against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer, if it remained aggrieved b...
Sm. Fultushi Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Sm. Jasoda Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated July 27, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.77 of 1993 thereby dismissing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 2. The petitioners have filed this revisional application. The opposite party filed a suit being Title Suit No.77 of 1993 for partition, declaration and accounts in respect of the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint against the petitioners before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence. 3. At that time, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 4. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »