Kolkata Court May 2012 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.
Subal Chandra Saha Vs. Amber Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant/respondent and is directed against the Order dated May 26, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.152 of 2008 thereby setting aside the Order dated April 2, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.38 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘C.P.C.’) on contests. The plaintiffs/appellants/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.38 of 2007 against the petitioner for declaration that the agreement dated September 19, 2005 is still in operation, permanent injunction restraining the defendant for rescinding or cancelling the agreement dated September 19, 2005 and other consequential reliefs. They filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. p...
Farhat and Associates and Another Vs. Md. NezamuddIn @ Nezam Mallick a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.s 1 and 2 and is directed against the judgment and order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.95 of 2007 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated March 5, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.261 of 2006. The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.261 of 2006 against the petitioners and other opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore for eviction on the ground of default and other reliefs. In that suit, the opposite parties filed an application or temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from making construction of commercial building by the sanctioned plan. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo in res...
Kankani Estate Private Limited Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2012
I.P. MUKERJI, J. The defendant is a bank. They are in occupation of the ground and first floors of a building numbered as 79, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata - 6. They have been occupying the said property as a monthly tenant, under the plaintiff from October, 1992. They were last paying rent @ Rs.1,76,639/- per month. They paid this rent till January, 2011 in February, 2011. As the rent is much above Rs.10,000/- per month, this tenancy, without any dispute is outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff treated the occupation of the defendant as a month to month lease tenancy. By their notice dated 23rd September, 2010 which is Annexure ‘E’ at page 16 of the application, they terminated this lease and asked the defendant to quit and vacate the property by delivering vacant and peaceful possession to them by 31st October, 2010. But the plaintiff introduced a bit of complication into this termination by writing the letter dated 3rd Novembe...
Smt. Sadhana Das Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 28th December, 2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Case No. C-1107 of 2001. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:- “After giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the instant complaint has been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court only on the ground for want of sanction. It is true that only the accused No. 1 moved the petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he obtained such order in his favour. It is settled law the observation and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the law of the land. Therefore, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of prayer of the accused No. 1 has been pleased to observe that the relevant complaint is bad in law for lack of sanction there is no other option but to hold that the said findings of the Hon’ble Supreme ...
Nripendra Nath Roy and Others Vs. Barindra Nath Roy and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated April 9, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2009 thereby affirming the order of refusal to pass ex parte order of injunction at the initial stage passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat in Title Suit No.459 of 2008. The petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, accounts and other reliefs. In that suit, they filed an application for temporary injunction praying for restraining the defendants / opposite parties, their men and agents from interfering with or preventing from exercising rights of ownership in respect of the suit property and from possessing the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint and other consequential reliefs in the said petition. That application was moved for ad interim ex parte order and upon consideration of the materials on...
Ambrish Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing the order of suspension as communicated under D.O. No.65/92 dated February 6, 1992, charge-sheet issued under memo no.50/PRO/153/03/92 dated March 3, 1992, inquiry report dated September 1, 1992, show-cause notice dated September 15, 1992, order of punishment issued under memo no. R.O.161/03 dated March 4, 2003 and the order passed by the statutory appellate authority issued under memo no.S.C.30/123/03(APS) dates September 9, 2003. The petitioner was working for gain in the post of constable of Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway and he was posted at Railway Protection Force, West Coast Asansol at the material point of time. By an order passed under memo no.D.O.65/92 dated February 6, 1992(hereinafter referred as the said order of suspension), the petitioner was placed under suspension, amongst other constables. A charge-sheet was issued under memo No.SO/PRO/153/03/92 dated March 3, 1992(hereinafter referred to the said c...
Dipak Kr. Roy Vs. Sm. Anjali Roy (Sarkar)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. BACKDROP Dipak Kumar Roy, the appellant was an employee of the Railway. He retired from service on January 1, 2001. Just on the eve of his retirement on January 30, 2001, he was arrested by the Police on a distress warrant issued by the learned Magistrate for recovery of monthly maintenance that he was supposed to pay to his wife and the lone child with whom he had a long discord. The facts would depict, Dipak was married to Anjali, the respondent on May 31, 1978. Out of the wedlock their only son Koushik was born. According to Dipak, soon after the marriage when Anjali entered the matrimonial home, she refused to perform the Hindu rites and removed the vermilion from her forehead and became extremely wild and ill tempered. In June 1978 Dipak went to Udaipur for an official job where he took his wife along with him. He had to come back before the scheduled date in view of indifferent behaviour of his wife. After coming back he took her to Onda in the district o...
Smt. Aloka Mondal and Others Vs. the United India Insurance Company Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. The victim Rabindra Nath Mondal was forty years old. He was working in the office of the Superintendent, Government Railway Police earning Rs.7720/- per month. He met with an accident on November 5, 2002 when he received multiple injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. As per the complaint motor vehicle WP-03-7740 caused the accident. The vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The policy was valid at the time of accident. The widow, two sons and the aged mother applied for compensation for rupees ten lacs along with interest in terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that the subject motor vehicle had been proceeding from Baruipur towards Sonarpur in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle hit a motor cycle being driven by the deceased. Victim sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injury on the spot. The widow deposed as PW-1. Her evidence was corroborated by PW-2 who proved the income...
Smt. Gouri Roy (Mohanta) Vs. Sri Balai @ Ashish Mohanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. FACTS Facts are somewhat shameful. This may also be termed as a relentless fight of a minor girl who ultimately became successful in life. The brave girl Gouri, the appellant above named unfortunately took her birth in the womb of her mother Purna Laxmi Roy, a Group-D staff in a Health Home at Alipurduar. Purna Laxmi got acquainted with Balai alias Asish Mohanta, the respondent above named. They became friendly. On February 13, 1991 Purna Laxmi gave marriage to her minor daughter Gouri who was studying in school. She was fifteen years old at that time. The couple resided in a rented house for a month. Balai was doing nothing and used to inflict torture upon Gouri. Soon they shifted to the hospital quarter belonging to Purna Laxmi. Purna Laxmi was maintaining them. She was rather akin to Balai despite Gouri being tortured by him. Gouri started her battle.She continued her study by making arrangement of her own through private tuition. She got Government stipend t...
Swapan Kumar Das and Another Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 27th September 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd Court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VI (February) 2002 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 34 (12) 2001 arising out Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 115 of 2000 dated 18th October 2000 by which the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted them of the offence punishable under Section 302. By an order dated 30th September 2002 the learned Trial Court sentenced both the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 year...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »