Kolkata Court April 2012 Judgments
Hashi Mukherjeeplaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant Vs. Kolkata Municipal Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.123 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HASHI MUKHERJEE Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS Defendant/Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :16. h April, 2012. For Petitioner : MR.SHAKTINATH MUKHERJEE,SR.ADVOCATE MR.S.BASU,ADVOCATE MR.B.DUTTA,ADVOCATE MS.D.ROY,ADVOCATE. For KMC : MR.ASHOKE KUMAR BANERJEE,SR.ADVOCATE & LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER. MR.B.MUKHERJEE,ADVOCATE MR.G.C.DAS,ADVOCATE The Court : Let affidavit in opposition to the writ petition be filed by 8th June, 2012. Reply, if any, by 22nd June, 2012. Point of maintainability of the writ petition is kept open. So far as the prayer for interim order is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that his client is entitled to an interim order in view of the law laid down in paragraph-7 of the judgement in Lt. Col.P.R.Chaudhary(Retd.) versus Municipal Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanak Projects Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Patherya, J. E.C. 81 of 2007 has been filed by the decree-holder for execution of a decree dated 31st March, 1987 by seeking to take vacant possession of 10,835.31 sq.ft. on the second floor of premises No. 41, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, 2,400 sq.ft. on the third floor in the annexe building and 120 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the said premises. The said decree has been challenged by the judgmentdebtor by an application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being G.A. 3618 of 2007. Counsel for the judgment-debtor submits that C.S. No. 440 of 1985 was filed by the decree-holder and on compromise a decree was passed. The Terms of Settlement so also the Lease Deed dated 9th September, 1986 was made a part of the decree. It has been alleged by the decree-holder that the said Lease Deed of 1986 is a part of the decree and there has been breach thereof, therefore the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree dated 31st March, 1987. The Lease Deed is neither stamped ...
Tag this Judgment!Angel Digital Private Limited Vs. S. B. Films and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated December 23, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Ninth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 4574 of 2008. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge dismissed an application for temporary injunction and vacated the ad interim order of injunction granted by order dated November 4, 2008. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 4574 of 2008, inter alia, for a direction that the plaintiff is the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of the three Bengali films, that is, Rajeshwari(Colour), Nagar Darpane Black and White) and Nishi Trishna(Black and White) and was, therefore, entitled to enjoy the right of exhibition, telecasting, broadcasting, webcasting and/or exploiting the said three films in any format or otherwise according to the choice of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, also, prayed for a decree for declaration that the defendants had no ri...
Tag this Judgment!Kanak Projects Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Patherya, J. E.C. 81 of 2007 has been filed by the decree-holder for execution of a decree dated 31st March, 1987 by seeking to take vacant possession of 10,835.31 sq.ft. on the second floor of premises No. 41, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, 2,400 sq.ft. on the third floor in the annexe building and 120 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the said premises. The said decree has been challenged by the judgmentdebtor by an application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being G.A. 3618 of 2007. Counsel for the judgment-debtor submits that C.S. No. 440 of 1985 was filed by the decree-holder and on compromise a decree was passed. The Terms of Settlement so also the Lease Deed dated 9th September, 1986 was made a part of the decree. It has been alleged by the decree-holder that the said Lease Deed of 1986 is a part of the decree and there has been breach thereof, therefore the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree dated 31st March, 1987. The Lease Deed is neither stamped ...
Tag this Judgment!Himadri Chemicals and Industries Ltd Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
1. The petitioner is the claimant in an arbitral dispute between it and the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 is in seisin of such dispute as the sole arbitrator. According to the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 after being appointed as an arbitrator did not in terms of the legislative mandate contained in Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) disclose to the parties the circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality. This was despite the fact that the opposite party no.2 had been an officer attached to the Durgapur Steel Plant of the opposite party no.1 for a substantially long period of time. Once called upon by the petitioner, the arbitrator responded. From the response it transpired that the opposite party no.2 had been appointed arbitrator by the Durgapur Steel Plant in as many as seven arbitrations after his retirement, of which three were still continuing. Enquiry made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Chatterjee and Another Vs. Bapi Saha @ Narayan Ch. Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the order No.15 dated February 25, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 10th Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.468 of 2006 thereby disposing of an application dated November 2, 2006 filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit for recovery of possession from a trespasser, damages and other reliefs against the defendant/opposite party herein before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The defendant was served with summons on April 24, 2006 and the next date was fixed on June 22, 2006 for appearance of the defendant. The defendant entered an appearance on June 22, 2006 and thereafter on the prayer of the defendant, the learned Trial Judge fixed the dates on August 5, 2006, September 4, 2006, September 26, 2006 and November 2, 2006 for filing a written statement by the defendant. But he failed or neglected to file a written statement on November 2, 2006. Then the plaintiff filed an application ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rashmi Industries Vs. M/S. Lion Paper Products
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Soumen Sen,J. This revisional application raises interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the witness action, on 10th May, 2007, the witness on behalf of the defendant, namely, D.W.1 was examined and cross-examined and the same is duly recorded in the order dated10th May, 2007. Thereafter, on 8th June, 2010, when the said matter was taken up for argument, the learned Judge after going through the deposition found that the signature of the Presiding Officer was not appearing in the said deposition of D.W.1 and held that the evidentiary value of the said D.W.1 is questionable. The learned Judge, to avoid any future complications felt that another date may be fixed for further cross-examination of D.W.1 and, accordingly, adjourned the hearing of the argument till further crossexamination of the D.W.1 is over. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of the Order dated 8th June, 2010...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shyamal Samaddar Vs. Smt. Sampa Samaddar (Nee Guha Thakurta)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. The marriage took placeon negotiation. However the respective family members perhaps did not consider whether the couple would be a perfect match for each other. We are prompted to say so when we find that the husband was having education up to the school level having passed Higher Secondary Examination whereas the wife was a Post Graduate. From the letters written by the couple to each other would however show that the wife tried to maintain the marital knot even at the cost of desertion as her husband left her soon after the marriage due to occupational commitments. Significant to state, the husband was working as a Radio Officer and mostly on voyage. Thus the wife did not get the company of the husband. From the record we find that the marriage took place on February 11, 1993. From the letters it appears that they had hardly one-month time to be together when husband left for his job. However, the lady conceived. The husband initially was caring about her hea...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated May 19, 2010 is seeking the following principal relief: “a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents authorities, their men/agent/subordinates to forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned memo no. Pen-355/DDA(E) MSD dated 12.08.2004, as at Annexure P-9 to this petitioner.” Annexure P9 referred to in prayer (a) is at p.93. It is a statement of wrong pay fixation overpayment to the petitioner during the period from April 3, 1972 to April 1, 2005. The overpaid amount was recovered from the petitioner’s retirement benefits. The recovery was shown in the pension payment order dated July 12, 2005 (at p.92). The petitioner was working as a secondary school teacher. On reaching the age of superannuation she retired from services on July 31, 2005. Until she received the pension payment order, she had never been told that due to wrong pay fixation she had been overpaid. Feeling agg...
Tag this Judgment!Maqbool Ahmad Khan Vs. the Estate Manager, Murshidabad Estate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The instant revisional application is arising out of an order passed by the 11th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in a proceeding initiated under Section 8 of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act, 1980”). The petitioner claims to be a tenant inducted in respect of 2 rooms at the Ground Floor, Premises No.85, Park Street (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”) by one Fatyeab Ali Meerza, claiming to be a descendant of Nawab of Murshidabad. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the said Act on 28th April, 2007 on the ground that he is an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice contending that the said Act is ultra vires and the issue relating to vires of the said Act, 1980 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Act was constitutionally invalid and, accor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »