Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... subject to the operation of [the mines act, 1952 (35 of 1952)] or [a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the union, a railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place]; 30. on behalf of the state-respondents neither any material was produced before the learned tribunal nor even before this court at the time ..... by reason of the proviso to section 6(3) and section 6(1)(g) of the said west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 is competent to resume the said subject land. 2. the learned tribunal, therefore, did not find any reason to interfere with the order of resumption passed by the state government and dismissed the ..... the provisions of section 6(1)(g) and section 6(3) of the west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 have no manner of application in respect of the subject land. 28. the learned government representative clearly submitted before the learned tribunal that the factory, being sodepur pottery, was inoperative on the date of vesting. the finally published .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. challenge is to the order dated april 21, 2009 passed by the learned municipal assessment tribunal, first bench, kolkata municipal corporation in appeal no.2172 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. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment & order dated November 22, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2005 thereby affirming the order dated May 4, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purulia in Title Suit No.50 of 2005. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a Title Suit No.50 of 2005 against the defendant for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. The defendants contested the said application by filing a written objection denying all the materials allegations contained in the said application. That application for tempora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order dated July 16, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.74 of 1994. By the said application, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated February 10, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge. The plaintiffs/opposite party nos.1 to 6 instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.74 of 1994 against the petitioner being the defendant no.2 along with other opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 being the defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 therein for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In that suit, the defendant is contesting by filing a written statement. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff came up with an application for addition of party. Another application was also filed by him for amendment of the plaint. Both the petitions were allowed by the learned Trial Judge by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... , air 1991 sc 700, 75 cwn 195 and air 1979 cal 79 to the effect that the relevant date for determining the valuation under section 4(1) of the partition act would be the date when the member shareholder undertakes to buy the share of the transferee provided such undertaking is given after share of the transferee has been ascertained by ..... a co-sharer when transfer was made to an outsider. it is not the situation. in the instant case preemption has been sought for under section 3 of the partition act. moreover, the valuation was assessed in the year 1972, that is, more than 35 years back and the co-plaintiff/defendant no.2 wanted to purchase the share of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.10 dated February 17, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sixth Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.103 of 1995 thereby rejecting an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.103 of 1995 for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff has a right as sebait in respect of the suit property as per terms of the Arpannama dated May 5, 1972 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invading upon and interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. In that suit, Smt. Chhaya Rani Ghosh was the defendant no.6 and she is the mother of the plaintiff, Joydeb Ghosh. Subsequently, Chhaya Rani Ghosh died and the plaintiff did not take any steps for substitution. Long time thereafter, the heirs of Chhaya Rani Ghosh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for adding as parties in the suit. That a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.118 dated July 17, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.13 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.13 of 1996 for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement, default, etc. The defendant/petitioner herein was contesting the said suit all along. After his death, his heirs, that is, the present petitioners have been substituted. The contention of the defendant is that during pendency of the suit, the landlord/owner got other accommodations and his accommodations were rented to other persons. This fact was not known to him earlier and so, he filed the application for additional written statement when he became aware of the fact. That application for filing written statement was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. they also filed applications under section 17(1) & 17(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956 and those petitions were disposed of accordingly. owing to financial stringency, the defendants could not make payment of rent from february, 2005 to april, 2007. for ..... the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. in that suit, the defendants filed application under section 17(1) & 17(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956. both the applications were disposed of by the learned trial judge. the rent for the premises in suit was rs.32/- per month payable according to ..... the learned trial judge has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and he has rightly allowed the application under section 17(3) of the 1956 act thereby striking out the defence against delivery of possession. the learned trial judge has passed a reasoned order in support of his disposal of the applications .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... .o. no.2886 of 2010 first.4. the wife/petitioner herein is the respondent of the matrimonial suit no.11 of 2007 under the section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 filed by the husband/opposite party herein. the said matrimonial suit was filed by the husband before the learned district judge, hooghly. it was transferred to the court of ..... this honble court six years back. this application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. this order is firm and mandatory and the learned trial judge is directed to act strictly.9. considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.c.o. no.3166 of 201010. the husband of the said matrimonial suit no.11 of 2007 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... ownership as observed above. the defendants are depositing the rents in the court by challan and the application under section 7(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1997 has been disposed of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. this application has become infructuous at present. so, this application is also dismissed ..... , 2004, cannot be accepted. the learned trial judge has rightly observed that since the defendant has complied with the provisions of section 7(2) of the 1997 act in the earlier title suit no.224 of 1995 up to september, 2005. so, the tenants were not required to deposit again in the subsequent suit with respect ..... no arrears of rent at present and so, the learned trial judge has rightly disposed of the application under section 7(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1997 holding that there is no arrear of rents.7. therefore, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.8. upon hearing the .....
Tag this Judgment!