Kolkata Court June 2012 Judgments

Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Orsrespo

Court: Kolkata

ORDER SHEET W.P.No.422 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HIND PALACE PVT.LTD.& ANR Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :21. t June, 2012. For Petitioner : MR.S.BASU,ADVOCATE MR.R.L.MITRA,ADVOCATE For KMC :MR.S.K.DE,ADVOCATE MR.D.MONDAL,ADVOCATE. The Court : In the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to cancel the levy of surcharge in respect of premises No.76, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- 700013 for the period from 2nd quarter 2007-2008 to 4th quarter 2010-2011 and to revalue the premises for the said period because of the closure of the cinema hall during the said period. It is submitted by Mr.Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner that since it is evident from page-33 of the writ petition that an application in the statutory form has been filed praying for reduction of valuation du...

Akhtar HussaIn Khan Vs. South Eastern Railway Central Hospital Through ...

Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata

S. Coari, Ld. Member: The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dt. 12.10.09 passed by Purulia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 12 of 2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost. The case of the Complainant/Appellant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant in the capacity of an employee under South Eastern Railway, Adra, met with an accident on 27.04.05 and sustained injury on his left wrist. Initially the complainant got first aid from Sadar Hospital, Purulia, on 28.4.05 and subsequently he was admitted in Male Surgical Ward of South Eastern Railway Hospital, Adra. According to the Complainant, though there was sufficient pain in the left wrist of the complainant, but the attending doctor ignoring such state of affairs conducted P.O.P. pluster in the injured hand of the complainant thereby also ignoring the fact that there was swel...

Smt. Sumita Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Maitreyee Sinha Roy and Another

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order dated March 25, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Misc. Case No.301 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth shall be called ‘CPC’) for transposition of the petitioner from the category of the petitioners to the category of the opposite party of the said Misc. Case. The petitioner along with two others filed an application for obtaining Letters of Administration in respect of the properties left by deceased Pronab Kr. Sinha Roy and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.301 of 2010. The petitioner contended, inter alia, that Pronab Kr. Sinha Roy, since deceased, was the owner of the properties mentioned in the application and that she was an attesting witness to the said Will. She put her signature on the application for Letter of Administration believing that her father had executed the Will in question...

Guruprosad Chakraborty and Another Vs. Umarani Kundu Chowdhury and Oth ...

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the Order No.76 dated January 16, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.150 of 2000 thereby allowing the defendant no.4 to repair the Schedule ‘B’ property as described in the application at his own cost without changing the nature and character of the property. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. The plaintiffs / petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.150 of 2000 against the defendants / opposite parties for declaration that a certain deed of declaration executed by defendant no.2 in 1999 is void, invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs, for further declaration that the deed of conveyance executed by the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 executed in the  year 1999 is void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have contended ...

Sanjit Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal and Others

Court: Kolkata

1. In exercise of power conferred by the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, the West Bengal Excise (Country Spirit) Rules, 2009 (hereafter the Rules) have been framed. The rules were notified vide notification no. 1320-EX dated November 12, 2010, published in the Kolkata Gazette dated November 15, 2010. Rule 28 of the Rules providing for “Issue of country spirit only on payment of duty”, was amended by notification no. 320-EX/O/1R-5/10 dated March 26, 2012, published in the Kolkata Gazette dated April 12, 2012. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 was substituted and sub-rule (3) thereof was deleted. 2. The petitioners are licensees/retailers of country spirit. They claim that the amendments in Rule 28 would result in their suffering huge business losses. They say that effect given to the amendments in Rule 28 has resulted in a situation where the maximum retail price of a product that the petitioners have been permitted to sell would be lower than the cost of procurement. Feeling aggrieved there...

Sri Golak Dhali and Others Vs. Smt. Saraswati Seal (Dhali) and Others

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J. These four applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order as they involve over the same matter in issue. For the sake of convenience, the C.O. No.1493 of 2012 is taken up for decision first. C.O. No.1493 of 2012 This application is at the instance of the respondent no.8 and is directed against the Order No.2 dated March 5, 2012 and Order No.7 dated April 5, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge-in-charge, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Appeal No.111 of 2012 thereby granting an order of status quo upon both the parties in respect of the suit property and extending the said order of interim order from time to time. The petitioner is a developer and is developing the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint on the basis of the registered Powers of Attorney. The petitioner has contended that one, Pyari Mohan Dhali, since deceased, was the owner of the land in suit along with dilapidated structure thereon and he died in 1967 leaving his w...

Chandan Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and Others

Court: Kolkata

Joymalya Bagchi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 3 herein, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for higher scale of pay for possessing Post Graduate qualification, namely, Master in Physical Education (M.P.Ed.). The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.08.1999 in Work Education and Physical Education Group in Bartala Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Boys’) after being sponsored by West Bengal Regional School Service Commission and his service was approved with effect from 30.08.1999 by the District Inspector of Schools. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner possessed Master Degree in Physical Education, a Post Graduate qualification in respect of the subject for which he was appointed. On 05.02.2001 the petitioner made a representation for higher scale of pay for possessing Post Graduate Degree through Managing Commi...

Nayan Ranjan Mahapatra Vs. Sudha Krishna Das

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.: Challenge is to the Order No.37 dated February 18, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.16 of 2005 arising out of Title Suit No.247 of 2001. The plaintiff is the petitioner of the application. He instituted a suit being Title Suit No.247 of 2001 for declaration, injunction, recovery of possession and other reliefs against the opposite party in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendant/opposite party was contesting the said suit and he took several adjournments to file a written statement. Ultimately, he could not file any written statement. Even he did not file any show-cause as to why the suit should not be heard ex parte against him. Ultimately, the suit was heard ex parte on June 14, 2001 and then, the suit was decreed ex parte on August 31, 2004. Thereafter, on June 23, 2005, the opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting ...

Sajeda Khatoon Vs. Shah Ata HossaIn and Others

Court: Kolkata

Soumen Sen, J.:- The order allowing a petition filed under Order 2 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed after conclusion of evidence and before argument was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal in Suit No.9 of 2009 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. The principal issue raised in this revisional application is the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to allow an application under Order 2 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure after conclusion of evidence and before argument. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Wakf Act, 1995 are required to be taken into consideration:- i) Order 2 Rule 2,C.P.C. 2. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of...

Employeesand#8217; State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/S. Peerless Gener ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN575

Prasenjit Mandal, J. These three applications are directed against the orders dated March 27, 2009, August 19, 2009 and March 27, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Employees’ Insurance Court, Calcutta, West Bengal in T.C. (Tender Case) No.23 of 2009, T.C. (Tender Case) No.31 of 2009 and T.C. (Tender Case) No.21 of 2009 respectively. Since the common question is involved in the three matters, the said three applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the fact of the case being C.O. No.1649 of 2010 is stated below in short. C.O. No.1649 of 2010:- The opposite party filed an application under Section 75(1)(c) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and in that application he filed an application for temporary injunction and another application under Section 75(2B) of the said Act before the Employees’ Insurance Court, Calcutta, West Bengal. The opposite party challenged therein the order passed under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 whe...