Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
..... for condonation of delay and we think that such prayer should be rejected. in the result, the application praying for condonation of delay, as filed under section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act 2007, stands dismissed on contest but without cost. consequently the transfer application is also not admitted and same is also dismissed. ..... the application filed under section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act (hereinafter called the act) praying for condonation of delay, as well as the objection filed against it are taken up today for passing order . in the application under section 22 of the act the applicant has stated that consequent to a court martial proceeding, that was initiated against him, he was found guilty and the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... test to those laid down by the supreme court in its above judgment. if a question of law was neither raised before the tribunal nor considered by it in its order but, otherwise arose from the order of the ..... held to be an act of oppression. the said finding has been maintained by the high court although it has given stronger reasons for the same. this passage identifies perversity of the order as a circumstance when a question of law is said to arise from it, when no question of law is raised before the tribunal nor answered by it. ..... considered by it. the tribunal gave its decision plainly on facts. our division bench in the case of metal press works limited v ram pratap kayan, reported in 72 cwn 594 added its own authority to the above proposition of law. it said that the decision of the supreme court should be confined to the income tax act only. it added another .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... of natural justice. the requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with, and so forth. 87. in ecil v. b. karunakar this court noticed the existing law and said that the theory ..... objection an fresh enquiry report the annual vlauation was fixed at rs. 5 lac and now the petitioner if aggrieved by the such fixation, is required to approach the tribunal for challenging the same. this paragraph 5 was replied in the affidavit in reply in paragraph 9, which reads such : 9. with reference to the statements contained in ..... an fresh inquiry report, the annual valuation was fixed at rs.5 lac and now the petitioner, if aggrieved by the such fixation, is required to approach the tribunal for challenging the same. in the affidavit-in-reply the aforesaid allegations to be found in the affidavit-in-opposition were not dealt with. therefore, prima facie the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
..... judgment. the applicant filed an application before the honble calcutta high court and the said application, subsequently was transferred to this bench, in view of coming into operation of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007. 2. the facts as stated in the application are that the petitioner was enrolled in service permanently in the year 1999. on 03-09-2007, the petitioner received show .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.1(ka) and is directed against the order no.174 dated March 3, 2009 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Bolpur, District - Birbhum in Title Suit No.38 of 1989 thereby rejecting the petition dated February 19, 2009 filed by him.2. The short fact is that in an appeal arising out of the said title suit, the petitioner/appellant filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. in the said title appeal being Title Appeal No.17 of 1998. That application was filed for marking a certain Deed of Sale dated April 25, 1999 as exhibit. That application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. was rejected, but, the suit was remanded back directing the parties to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the said petition dated February 19, 2009 for marking the Deed of Sale as exhibit, which was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been filed.3. The short question in the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.177 dated June 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Tamluk, District Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No.195 of 1985 thereby accepting the report submitted by the learned commissioner holding local investigation.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.195 of 1985 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Medinipur against the petitioner and other opposite parties for eviction and recovery of possession of a licensee, that is, the petitioner. In that suit, the plaintiff has contended that he is the owner of the L.R. Dag No.841 and R.S. Plot No.303 in the District - Purba Medinipur and the defendant/petitioner herein was given possession of the same by the plaintiff as per agreement between the parties. The petitioner is contesting the said suit denying the materials allegations contained in the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... one with regard to appointment of an arbitrator, the function is discharged as soon as the matter is referred to an arbitrator naming an arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal. in that case, an execution application was dismissed holding the same not maintainable. that decision came out on march 16, 2008 and the division bench decision ..... an arbitrator, namely, r. n. chakraborty, appointed by the honble chief justice of the high court at calcutta under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. the arbitrator proceeded with the matter and thereafter he submitted an award. being aggrieved, an application for setting aside that award was preferred before the learned district ..... . section 42 is quoted below:-42. jurisdiction.- notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this part has been made in a court, that court alone shall have jurisdiction over .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. challenge is to the order dated march 26, 2009 passed by the learned municipal assessment tribunal, first bench, kolkata municipal corporation in appeal no.2171 of 2007. the appellant has preferred this application contending, inter alia, that he entered into an agreement for sale of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.104 dated January 29, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Contai in Title Suit No.89 of 2001. The defendant no.3 is the petitioner. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.89 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Contai against the opposite party nos.2 & 3 as the defendant nos.1 & 2 and the petitioner herein and the opposite party no.4 herein as the defendant nos. 3 & 4. According to the plaint case, the defendant no.4 was the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant nos.1 & 2 being the son-in-law and the daughter of the defendant no.4 represented that the defendant no.4 executed and registered two deeds of gift in favour of the defendant nos.1 & 2. By making such representation, the defendant nos.1 & 2 sold out the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of taking possession, the defendant no.3, son of the defendant no.4, res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order dated September 5, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No.84 of 1999 thereby reversing the order no.30 dated June 8, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.62 of 1997.2. The petitioner was the defendant no.1 of the title suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for declaration and partition. In that suit, the defendants in two sets, namely, the defendant nos.1 to 13 in one set and the defendant nos.14 & 15, namely, the opposite party nos.2 & 3, in another set, are contesting the said suit by filing separate written statements. The defendant nos.1 to 13 filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. The defendant nos.14 & 15 filed an objection against that application with the caption objection but, in fact, it was a counter-claim to have a right of possession of comm...
Tag this Judgment!