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.
Sri Kali Narayan Roy Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy Choudhury and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant No.2 and is directed against the Order dated February 7, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.271 of 1981 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.271 of 1981 for a decree for specific performance of contract against the defendant No.1 in respect of an immovable property and for permanent injunction against the defendants and other consequential reliefs. On the other hand, the defendant No.2/petitiner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.401 of 1982 against the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The two suits are being tried analogously and the suits are at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the defendants. At that stage, on September 2, 2005 an applicati...
M/S. Web Techniques and Net Solutions Pvt. Ltd and Others Vs. M/S. Gat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the Order No.48 dated March 31, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 2nd Bench, Calcutta in Misc. Case No.216 of 2004 thereby dismissing an application for adducing evidence at the hearing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Parties entered into several agreements dated November 1, 2001 relating to grant of lease of various goods, articles, equipment to be used by the opposite party no.1 at 49B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700012. Various disputes arose between the parties and even the opposite parties did not deliver the possession of the office space after expiry of the period of licence. Nor did the opposite party pay the money as per just demands of the petitioners. Amongst others there was a clause for arbitration. The petitioners received a letter from the arbitrator, namely, opposite party no.2 stating that he had been appointed as arbitrator by the opposite pa...
Jagadish Singh Vs. the Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the order dated August 29, 2007 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.101 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application dated September 19, 2006 for stay of the order of demolition. The short question involved in the matter is whether the learned Municipal Building Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for stay while admitting the appeal against the order of demolition dated July 5, 2006 for violation of the building Rules. As per findings of the learned Municipal Building Tribunal, the petitioner is a habitual offender of the building Rules. The property involved in the matter of construction is a thika property. Previously, he made unauthorized construction and it was directed that the unauthorized construction should be regularized, provided the petitioner obtains ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the concerned Thika Controller and that he would not make...
Namita Das Vs. Amiya Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. Amiya and Namita got married on August 8, 1997 after a prolonged courtship. The marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on August 29, 1997. There was class difference between the two families as alleged by Amiya in his plaint. According to Amiya, his in-laws were affluent. His father-in-law was in Government service. They were residing in three storeyed pukka building having all modern amenities at Bidhan Nagar, a posh locality in the town of Midnapur. His brother-in-law was a businessman. Namita was brought up since childhood in affluence and enjoyed ultra-modern life as claimed by Amiya in his plaint. Amiya had a humble background. They were residing in joint mess in a rented accommodation. He was medical representative and used to earn meagre amount. Soon after the marriage, couple initially started residing in the rented accommodation along with the family members.Namita was not happy. On her insistence Amiya had to shift from one to the o...
Prabhash Kumar Basu Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. 1) Prabhash Kumar Basu who has been made an accused in Nagarkata police station case no. 58 of 2006 dated 28.10.2006 under Section 406/409 of Indian Penal code, has taken out this application praying for quashing of the proceeding on the grounds that : i) that he is not an ‘Employer’ coming within the mischief of explanation i) and ii) of Section 405 of IPC; ii) that protection given to the persons by explanation ii) is also to be extended to the person coming under explanation i) in view of equal protection as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution; iii) that the company being the ‘Employer’ has not been made an accused; and iv) two persons held responsible for the offence alleged which can not be possible in view of explanation ii) of Section 405 of IPC; 2) Petitioner Prabhash Kumar Basu was arraigned as an accused person on the basis of one F.I.R. lodged by Bijoy Kumar Sarkar, the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund O...
S.K. Samsud Doha Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
The writ petitioner has approached this Court challenging inaction on the part of the respondent-Electric Company (hereinafter referred to as “WBSEDCL”) to provide electric connection to the petitioner’s premises. The case of the petitioner is that he is a co-sharer of the premises in question. A partition suit is pending by and between the petitioner and the private-respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein being Title Suit No. 42 of 2004 pending before learned 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Howrah. The petitioner further states that by order dated 20.7.2010 the learned civil court has directed the petitioner and the private-respondents to maintain status quo as to nature, character and possession of the suit property. It is pertinent to point out that WBSEDCL is not a party to the said suit. On 3rd June, 2009 the petitioner made an application to WBSEDCL for electric connection. Spot verification was made by WBSEDCL and a quotation of Rs. 14,692/- was also raised on th...
M/S. Veer Hanuman Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the order dated March 17, 2008 passed by the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in R.P. No.45 of 1998 thereby directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh with the opposite party bank within a period of April 30, 2008. The appellant is the petitioner herein. In a recovery proceeding, the bank creditor got a decree of Rs.32,56,208.40 against the debtors / defendant no.s 1 and 2. The mortgaged property was sold in auction at a price of Rs.17,11,000/- in the recovery proceeding. Sale was confirmed thereafter. Long time thereafter, the defendant no.s 1 and 2 filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid sale on the ground that the price, at which the property was sold, was too low and no reserve price was fixed at the time of auction sale. The Debts Recovery Tribunal took initiative when an application was made to that effect and the revaluation was done. Consequently, the auction purchaser / appellant was directe...
Sandhya Mondal and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2012
GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA,J. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 15th, May,2006 passed in the Sessions Case No. 142 of 2001 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur in connection with Andal P.S. Case No. 24 of 1997 dated 16th February, 1997 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants of an offence punishable under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. By an order dated 16th May, 2006 the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 thereof...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›