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. Gita Rani Das. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.24 dated April 16, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C. Tribunal, 1 st Fast Track Court, Sealdah passed in M.A.C. Case No.32 of 2006 thereby allowing an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the insurer. 2. The claimant / petitioner herein instituted a claim case for compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- and other reliefs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer are contesting the said claim case. The owner filed a written statement. It is the contention of the insurer that the owner of the vehicle colluded with the claimant and as such, he is not contesting the claim case properly. For that reason, the insurer filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned ...
Sekhar Ray and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20/12/2004 and 21/12/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. 35 of 2004. 2. The appellants were tried on a charge of having subjected Smt. Shanti Roy to cruelty to compel her to meet their demand for dowry due to which she committed suicide within a period of 7 years from marriage and thereby committed offences under Section 498A I.P.C., 306 I.P.C. and 304B I.P.C. The appellants pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. It was their case that Smt. Shanti Roy committed suicide as she was not happy with the marriage and at the time of incident none of them were present at home and that they have been falsely implicated by the relatives of the deceased. The trial court on conclusion of the trial found the appellants/accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced them to s...
Ms. Nandeshwar Roadways and ors. Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Private Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated March 16, 2011 passed by the learned Advocate appointed as an arbitrator under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The question involved in this application is whether the arbitrator named in the agreement can act as the sole arbitrator in a dispute between the parties. The petitioners purchased five vehicles with the finance provided by the opposite party upon certain terms and conditions amongst which there was a clause for arbitration. It was specifically mentioned in the agreement that in case of any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the agreement between the parties, any dispute or difference relating to the interpretation of the agreement or any clause thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitrator of Shri Pulin Behari Das with summary powers and the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules framed thereunder amongst other clauses. It was specifically mentioned that n...
Towajjel Sk.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. This revisional application has been taken out by the defacto complainant Towajjel Sk. challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia in Case No.1174-C of 2005 whereby his prayer for unearthing the dead body of his daughter (Benajir Khatun) for the purpose of F.S.L. examination was rejected. 2. It is reported by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as well as Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the State that the trial has already been commenced under Section 302/120B/498A of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties and today is fixed for examination of the defacto complainant in the learned Trial Court. 3. I find that this order was passed out of committal of the case to the Sessions Court being exclusively trialable by the Court of Sessions. It can well be assumed that before committing the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate recorded statements of ...
Sk. Abdul Rasid. Vs. Mr. Ratan Das.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. As this Court proposes to dispose of the revisional application itself upon hearing of both the parties and their learned Counsels, this application for modification/vacating interim order passed earlier is not required to be disposed of. 2. Accordingly, the application being C.R.A.N.1099 of 2009 stands dismissed. 3. This revisional application has been filed at the instance of Sk. Abdul Rasid, the defacto complainant in Budge Budge Police Station Case No.12 of 2007 dated 26.1.2007 challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Sessions Case No.35 (4) of 2007. 4. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 raised the question of juvenility in the learned Trial Court in the midst of the trial. An enquiry was held. Documents were produced. The learned Court did not find himself satisfy with the document and directed for an ossification test. After collecting the report of the ossification ...
Sri Ajit Sarkar. Vs. Sri Babuldev Chowdhury.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.48 dated August 20, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.219 of 2004 thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.219 of 2004 against the opposite party before the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta for ejectment on the ground of, inter alia, default etc. The opposite party is contesting the said suit and he has filed an application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act contending that he is not a defaulter at all in payment of rent. 3. He tendered rent but the landlord declined to accept. As such, he has deposited the rent with the Rent Controller. So, there is no arrear of rent. Upon consideration of the application, its objection and the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge has disposed of the application holding...
Kochiram Ghosh at Kochi and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19/07/2005 and 20/07/2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 40 (7) 04 arising out of Sessions Case No. 105 (1) 04 convicting the appellants Kochiram Ghosh @ Kochi and Badal Ghosh for having committed offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years, they are also found guilty for having committed offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year. 2. It is the a prosecution’s case that the deceased Tapan Halder was dealing in selling fish in Shasan Bazar. He got acquainted with the appellant Kochiram...
Bimanta Biswas and anr. Vs. Monoranjan Kha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against order no. 102 dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1 st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 116 of 1995 by which the counter-claim filed by the defendant/opposite party was accepted and an application for taking off the said counter-claim from the record was rejected. 2. This is suit for recovery of possession from a licensee. The defendant/opposite party claimed that they are the owner in respect of the property in question and are possessing the same on the strength of such right. The suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court. 3. Before the appellate court the defendant/opposite party filed an application for amendment seeking to incorporate the factum of sale of the property by the plaintiff/petitioner and also creating an obstruction in cultivation. Further application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed by the defendant/opposite party for production of the additional evidence. 4. The appellate court...
Ms. East Coast TradefIn Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. The legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta in C.1980 of 2007 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the learned Court found that it has no jurisdiction to try the present case and discharged the opposite party, has been challenged in this revisional application by the defacto complainant mainly on the ground that the learned Court failed to consider that he could entertain the case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the case was maintainable in its Court because the demand notice was sent from an area falls within its jurisdiction; A short reference to the back drop behind this revisional application is required to be given. 2. The petitioner/complainant filed one case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the opposite parties herein who have failed to pay the cheque amount in view of the demand notice within the statutory period. The learned Tria...
Dhananjoy Mondal and ors. Vs. Chatur Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated August 13, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3 rd Court, Malda in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2007 thereby affirming the order No.8 dated May 10, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2 nd Court, Malda in Other Suit No.227 of 2006. The defendants have filed this application. 2. The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein filed a suit being Other Suit No.227 of 2006 against the petitioners praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the properties as described in Schedule ‘Kha’, ‘Ga’ and ‘Gha’ to the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs have contended that they are the owners of the said suit properties and they possess the same all along. The defendants / petitioners herein are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction and that application for temporary injunction was allowed on contest by the learned Trial Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »