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. Anupam Khosla Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. This application has been filed by one Smt. Anupam Khosla, one of the daughter of Banshilal Dhiman, since deceased and grand-daughter of Late Dhram Chand Dhiman. It was contended that D. C. Dhiman & Bros. Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) was directed to be wound up by on order dated September 7, 1965 and thereafter the Official Liquidator took out an application for misfeasance against Dharam Chand Dhiman, Kissen Chand Dhiman, Meher Chand Dhiman and Keher Chand Dhiman together with Banshilal Dhiman, son of Dharam Chand Dhiman. In the said proceeding an ex-parte decree was passed on 7th February, 1974 for a principal sum of Rs.14,17,948/- together with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from 7th November, 1965 until repayment.2. On 5th August, 1979, the Official Liquidator filed an application under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of the judgment-debtors. On the said application an order was passed on 5th December, 1979 ...
Bappaditya Halder Vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The petitioner was recommended by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, South-Eastern Region for his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Physics in the category of Honours/PG Post in Gobordanga Government Colony Netaji Vidhyapith in the District of North 24 Parganas in February, 2008. On the basis of such recommendation made by the Regional School Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Science Group (Physics) in the said school. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the concerned District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), North 24 Parganas, with effect from 18th February, 2008. The educational qualification of the petitioner was recorded as B.Sc. Honours in Physics in the approval letter. The petitioner was given Rs.5500-11325 scale of pay which was admissible to the Honours graduate teacher at the relevant time. 2. Though the petitioner acquired Master degree in Electronic Science from the University of Calc...
ZinnatunnessA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Mr. Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present. Mr. Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the State is also present. The matter has been mentioned but it appears on record that it is pending since 2001 and requires to be disposed of without further delay. Since, both the learned Counsels are present in Court, this Court proposes to dispose of the matter itself without fixing any further date and without observing any formalities. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the proceeding in English Bazar Police Station Case No.373 of 2001 dated 2.11.2001 under Sections 468/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner Zinnatunnessa got her name registered with the local employment exchange after completion of Madhyamik standard in the year 1985 under the West Bengal Madrasah Education Board and Junior Basic Training Examination in 1990 from the Junior Basic Training Institute, Malda. The local employment exchange sponsored her name being eligible...
Sk. Ali Hossin. Vs. the Board of Wakfs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated November 10, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Calcutta, West Bengal in O.A. No.12 of 2010 thereby disposing of an application for condonation of delay of 135 days. 2. The short question involved in this application is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of 135 days in filing an application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 on the ground that the impugned resolution under challenge was not communicated to him in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.7851 of 2007. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995. 4. According to the Rule 26 of the West Bengal Wakf Rules, 2001 any person aggrieved of an order made under the Act may make an application under Section 83(2) of the said Act to the Tribunal for determination of any dispute within 30 days of such order, unless...
C.E.S.C. Limited. Vs. Smt. Ujjala Mondal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated September 10, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10 th Court, 24 Parganas (South) in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2008 arising out of the order dated December 17, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5 th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.291 of 1990. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.291 of 1990 praying for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The petitioner is contesting the said suit. While disposing an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., the learned Trial Judge directed the petitioner to restore electricity connection in the said premises with the meter within 30 days from the date of order and on restoration, the plaintiff was directed to pay the bills as per meter calculated by the defendant-company, if any. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2008 and the said misc. appeal was d...
Amarjit Singh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Mr. Habibur Rahaman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present. 2. Perused the petition which has been registered as C.R.R.1664 of 2010. It relates to a proceeding pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court at Alipore, 24-Paraganas, South under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. An innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner for early disposal of the proceeding initiated by him in the learned Trial Court against the opposite party. The proceeding was initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the year 2004 and unfortunately, not a single witness could be examined by the learned Trial Court for this reason or that reason. The conduct of the opposite party/accused as it reflected in the order sheets of the proceeding, is blameworthy. No doubt, the matter is required to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. 4. I think that this matter is not required ...
Ashok Kumar Nag and Another Vs. Narayan Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is to order no.51 dated May 18, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in O.C. Suit No.11/2007. By the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners, being the defendants in the suit, seeking recall of order no.50 dated April 19, 2011. The said order proceeded to allow a petition filed by the plaintiff/opposite party ex parte with the observation that “I find no legal bar to make the will in question exhibited as sought for”. 2. One Haran Chandra Nag (hereafter the deceased) executed a will dated February 20, 1993. He died on January 19, 1995 a bachelor, leaving behind him his two nephews, the petitioners, as his heirs. The opposite party, the executor of the will, thereafter filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate. The pet...
Dhirendra Kumar Bhattacharya and Others. Vs. Naren Dutta at Biswanath ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat in Title Appeal No.95 of 1996 whereby affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.06.1996 passed by Ld. Munsif, 2nd Court Barasat in Title Suit No.657 of 1982 declaring plaintiff’s title in respect of Plot No.4227 appertaining to Khatian No.5608 of Mouza, Halisahar and also granting permanent injunction against the defendants. 2. During admission it was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench that this appeal would be heard on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the Ld. Courts below committed substantial error in law in finding the title of the plaintiff in the suit property notwithstanding the fact that the said plaintiff would not produce any valid document to establish the title to the suit property. 2. Whether the Ld. Courts below committed substantial error in law in not properly considering the Exbts. A, ...
Md. ZamiruddIn at ZamiruddIn Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated July 13, 2011 is seeking the following principal reliefs: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamas commending the respondent for restoration of the supply line at your petitioner premises at 2C/H/3, Chatu Babu Lane Calcutta-700 014. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamas commanding the respondent authority to set aside the arbitrary assessment of Rs.74,331.00 inposed upon the petitioner." 2. Alleging unauthorized use of electricity CESC, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 supplying electricity to the premises, disconnected the supply on July 7, 2011. The assessing officer of CESC passed an order dated July 7, 2011 provisionally assessing the petitioner's liability for unauthorized use of electricity at Rs.74,331. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has brought this petition. Mr. Manna appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. Most arbitrarily CESC has disconnected the supply and its assessing officer has determ...
Kwality Restaurent. Vs. Smt. Kalpana Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the Order No.12 dated February 28, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), nd Court, Alipore in Ejectment Case No.68 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. 2 2. The applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for adding it as a defendant in the Ejectment Case No.68 of 2006 lodged by the plaintiffs / opposite parties herein against the defendants / opposite parties. That application was rejected by the impugned order by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the ejectment case is between the landlords and the tenants. The contention of the applicant is that he is a real tenant in the premises in suit as described in the plaint and that the defendants are not the tenants at all....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »