Kolkata Court September 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.
Shamser Ali and Others Vs. Nilkamal Sarkar and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated April 17, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated January 3, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.502 of 2010 thereby rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. On August 25, 2010, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.502 of 2010 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein in respect of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint. For convenience, the declaratory reliefs and permanent injunctions as prayed for in the plaint are described below:- a) a Decree declaring that, the Plaintiffs have unfettered right, title and possession of the schedule suit property by virtue of Deed of Heba and inheritance; b) a Decree declaring that, the Defendant Nos.1 t...
Puspendu Bikash Sahu and Another Vs. Dilip Kumar Basak and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.17 dated June 16, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.3546 of 2010 thereby granting leave to the plaintiffs to implead the Receiver as defendant in the suit consequently amendment sought for was also allowed. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this application. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.3546 of 2010 for a decree for partition and other reliefs in respect of the suit properties as described in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioners entered an appearance and thereafter, they filed an application for dismissal of the said suit on the ground of its maintainability that another suit for partition and accounts in respect of the several properties including the suit properties of this suit being Title Suit No.15 of 2007 had already been field by the plaintiff No.2/opposite party No.2 herein. It is also contended by the ...
Ranajit Midya Vs. Rabindranath Midya and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant No.1 and is directed against the Order No.47 dated May 20, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Ghatal in Title Suit No.27 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application for local investigation on contests. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.27 of 2010 for declaration of their share in respect of some of the suit properties and separate possession, possession in respect of some other properties upon declaration of their title, declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest in respect of ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’ schedule suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from ‘Ka’, ‘Ka-1’, ‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’ schedule suit properties and other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said sui...
Keshab Naskar and Others Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Toufique Uddin, J. 1. This appeal was directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 13th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas on 15.7.97 convicting accused Keshab Naskar and three other for offence under Section 326/34 IPC and sentencing to suffer R.I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each for such offence with default clause. 2. In the background of this appeal the prosecution case in a nutshell is that one defacto-complainant Sri Dashupada Mondal lodged a written complaint on 21.7.87 at 9.45 hours before the O.C. Joynagar P.S. to the effect that on 20.8.87 at about 7.00 A.M. while the accused persons tried to cultivate the land forcibly situated by the side of the vegetable garden of the de-facto complainant, his brother’s wife Brihaspati Mondal @ Savitri raised protest and the nephew of the defacto-complainant viz. Rabi Mondal and Dulal Mondal sons of Kunti Mondal rushed to the place and then accused Palan Naskar and his son...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the Indian Cements Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. FACTS On June 3, 1995 Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as SAIL) entered into a Charter Party agreement with Indian Cements Limited (hereinafter referred to as ICL) for importing coal from Australia . The vessel was to discharge cargo at four places in India including Paradip and Haldia. The dispute arose when the vessel arrived at Paradip Port on July 28, 1995 and completed discharge of unloading coal to the extent of 24,088 MT and leaving a balance quantity of 23,501 MT to be discharged at Haldia Port being the next port of discharge. At the time of unloading at Paradip Port, one of the cranes out of four cranes of the vessel had been found out of order for which SAIL calculated the lay time on pro-rata basis which ICL did not agree, that gave rise to dispute to be resolved through arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause stipulated in the Charter Party Agreement. Accordingly, the parties nominated their respective nominees...
B. Joga Rao Vs. the a and N State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The mandamus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been taken out by one B. Joga Rao, an employee under the respondent no.1, the A and N State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) praying for issuing direction on the respondents to confer his promotion to the post of Manager with retrospective effect from 29.8.2005 maintaining his seniority and, consequently, to the post of Senior Manager w.e.f. 19.01.2010. The petitioner, B. Joga Rao was appointed as Peon in the Society and, in course of time, promoted to the post of Deputy Manager together with some others vide the Office Order No.168 dated 01.5.1998. In the promotion list his position was no.1. Subsequently, amongst 21 incumbents, 7 were conferred with the post of Deputy Managers but the other 14 are the junior to the writ petitioner who were also promoted and posted as Deputy Managers vide an office Order No.354 dated 21.8.1995. In that case also, the petitione...
Wellman Wacoma Ltd. Vs. Tivoli P a Rk Apartments (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. TivoliPark, the respondent No. 1 was the owner of a bungalow situated at No. 225 Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta- 700 020. Wellman Incandescent Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Incandescent’) was a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1970 Incandescent became a tenant in respect of bungalow No. 5 measuring about fifteen hundred square feet under Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. The financial condition of Incandescent became precarious resulting in a BIFR proceeding where it was declared as a “Sick industrial company”. By an order dated July 25, 2002 BIFR recommended winding up of Incandescent and this Court ultimately passed an order of winding up vide order dated September 24, 2002. Since then the Official Liquidator would be in deemed possession of all the assets of the company in liquidation including the bungalow in question. According to Tivoli Park, they did not have any inf...
Shiv Shankar Shaw @ Jaiswal and Another Vs. Smt. Mira Gupta and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the executors and is directed against the Order No.32 dated January 17, 2012 passed by the learned District Delegate, Sealdah in Probate Case No.50 of 2008. One Raghoram Shaw was the owner of some properties and he died on January 2, 2008 testate leaving behind heir only daughter, namely, Roshani Shaw. Raghoram Shaw executed a Will bequeathing his entire properties to the petitioners and the opposite party No.s 2 to 5. The opposite party No.1 is a tenant in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule to the plaint. Raghoram Shaw filed two ejectment suits being No.s 21 of 2004 and 22 of 2004 against the opposite party No.1 and one Krishna Lal Gupta, since deceased, for eviction. As executors, the petitioners filed a probate case for grant of probate of the Will executed by Raghoram Shaw before the learned District Delegate, Sealdah being the Probate Case No.50 of 2008. In that probate case, the opposite party N...
Mahafuja Banu Vs. Md. Asadul Islam and State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1922 of 2003 arising out of Gazole P.S. Case No. 182 of 2003 dated 13th December, 2003 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the sole accused of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix has come up in appeal. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case appearing from the written complaint, lodged by the prosecutrix on 13th December 2003, when translated in English would read as follows:- (a) “Sir, I (name withheld by us), daughter of Maqbul Hossain, a permanent resident of the aforesaid address indicated above, most humbly submit that am a student of the Malda College and I am in the 2nd year of the Bengali Honours. In connection with my studies I have to stay in the Malda town at a tenanted house. I was...
Lalit Kumar Khettry Vs. Smt. Haimanti Deb Roy and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The order allowing substitution is a subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. The original plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction. The plaintiff expired after the conclusion of his evidence on October 21, 2010. Within the period of limitation on 18th January, 2011, the application was filed for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 by the heirs of the sole plaintiff. The said application was dismissed on 17th May, 2011 on the ground that the said application was not filed in proper form. While dismissing the said application, opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file a fresh petition for substitution and June 9, 2011 was fixed for fresh steps to be taken by the plaintiff. Consequent thereupon, another application was filed on June 9, 2011 for substitution along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application was allowed. Mr. A.C. Kar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the date of filing of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »