Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... so, it is crystal clear that at that stage, the defendant has sought for amendment by incorporating three paragraphs 8(a), (b) and (c) to the effect that the socalled deed of gift was not valid at all, it was not acted upon and the title of the property did not pass to the plaintiff at all. ..... in reply to paragraph no.1 of the plaint, the defendant submits that the alleged deed of gift dated 25.01.2000, by dint of which the plaintiff is claiming her alleged title to the suit premises, was never acted upon by the executrix thereof (smt. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is directed against the order no.56 dated february 15, 1991 passed by the learned judge, city civil court, second bench, calcutta in misc. case no.993 of 1990 arising out of the title execution case no.120 of 1982. the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the petitioners/decree holders obtained a decree for recovery of possession against the 8 defendants in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the title suit being title suit no.626 of 1979. that decree was put into execution by filing the execution application being title execution case no.120 of 1982. the opposite party filed an application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure contending, inter alia, that his father, narayan lal gupta, died 10 years back before the institution of the suit and so the decree obtained against the 8 defendants including narayan lal gupta is a nullity and the same is not executable. by the impugned order, the learned judge has allowed the misc. case accordingly. being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred.now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.2. upon hearing the submission of the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, i find that on april 6, 1979, the petitioners instituted a title suit no.626 of 1979 for recovery of possession on the ground of efflux of time of the lease granted for 21 years. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the defendants / judgment debtors and is directed against the order no.15 dated july 27, 2010 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), first court, bolpur in misc. case no.22 of 2009 arising out of title execution case no.2 of 2007 arising out of title suit no.75 of 2000.2. the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of the application is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being title suit no.75 of 2000 against the petitioners for declaration of right, title and interest in the kha schedule property and also for recovery of khas possession of the kha schedule property and for other reliefs. while the opposite party put the decree obtained in the said suit for execution, the petitioners filed an application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure contending, inter alia, that the report submitted by the learned commissioner appointed in the suit does not tally with the suit property and as such, the same is erroneous and for that reason the suit property could not be identified. as such, the decree passed by the learned trial judge is unexecutable. the petitioners adduced evidence. thereafter, the learned executing court rejected the application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the submission of the learned advocate of both the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the orders dated february 14, 2008 and march 13, 2008 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), haldia in title suit no.235 of 1993 thereby granting the prayer for analogous hearing of this suit along with the other suit being title suit no.3 of 1994.2. the short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a title suit being title suit no.235 of 1993 on october 7, 1993 in the court of the learned civil judge (junior division), haldia for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite party in respect of 13 decimals of land out of 52 decimals of land in r.s. plot no.422/510, khatian no.108/1 within mouza-brajanath chawk under police station haldia. the petitioner has contended that the total 52 decimals of land in the plot in suit originally belonged to one himangshu sekhar maity who transferred the said land by a registered deed dated february 14, 1966 to one bijay krishna sahoo and the said bijay krishna sahoo subsequently transferred 26 decimals of land out of the said 52 decimals of land in the western side to the opposite party no.2 and he also transferred the rest 26 decimals of land in eastern part of the said plot in suit in favour of the opposite party nos.1 and 3 herein in equal share by way of registered deed of sale dated may 28, 1980. he delivered possession of the said land in favour of the vendees. thereafter, the opposite party nos.1 & 3 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... there is no dispute that the wife is, at present, residing at her fathers house. ..... the short fact is that the petitioner and the opposite party were married under the special marriage act in july, 1988. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the defendant/respondent and is directed against the order no.9 dated february 4, 2011 passed by the learned additional district judge, seventh court, alipore in misc. appeal no.625 of 2010 thereby directing for demolition of the boundary wall alleged to have been constructed by the defendant/respondent/petitioner herein. the short fact is that the plaintiffs /appellants/opposite parties instituted a suit being title suit no.106 of 2010 before the learned civil judge (senior division), alipore against the petitioner praying for pre-emption under the mohammedan law, injunction and other reliefs. the petitioner is contesting the said application. at the time of filing of the said suit by the plaintiffs, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the learned trial judge did not grant any ad interim injunction as prayed for. the plaintiffs / opposite party filed a misc. appeal being misc. appeal no.625 of 2010 before the learned district judge and at that time, they moved an application for ad interim injunction. the learned district judge granted ad interim order of injunction and thereafter the said misc. appeal was transferred to the court of the learned additional district judge, seventh court, alipore. the plaintiffs contended that in spite of order of injunction passed by the learned district judge, the defendant/petitioner in violation of the said order, demolished the construction of the plaintiffs boundary wall, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that an application under section 8 of the west bengal land reforms act, 1955 for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party on the ground of vicinity. ..... talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, i find that the original petitioner filed an application for pre-emption under section 8 of the west bengal land reforms act, 1955 against the opposite party on the ground of vicinity. ..... -emption on the ground that the petitioner is also a co-sharer of the land in case, i find that the remand was not given to that effect at all though the amendment of section 8 of the west bengal land reforms act had already taken place in the meantime in 2000. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. this petition was heard along with criminal writ petition no.1924 of 2010, which is being disposed of by separate order today. this petition has been filed by the son of co-accused nanki chellaram chellani. his mother is accused in crime registered as c.r.no.214 of 2009 at mahim police station for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 r/w 120-b of the indian penal code.2. the petitioner states that his mother nanki chellani has since expired after she was released on bail. by this petition, the petitioner prays that the investigation of c.r.no.214/2009 be transferred to any other police station and to register criminal case against respondent no.4 inspector shri sunil chandugude and other police men and their associates who were investigating the crime registered as c.r.no.214 of 2009, as they are responsible for the death of his mother, who was falsely implicated, notwithstanding the fact that she was almost 84 years of age. this petition is another attempt to make false, frivolous and vexatious allegations against the police personnel who are investigating into the offence bearing c.r.no.214 of 2009. significantly, the petitioner's mother had filed criminal writ petition no.3226 of 2009 to espouse the cause of her grandson mahesh dua. the same was dismissed on 5th february, 2010 on the following terms: "1. in this petition, it is inter alia prayed that respondents 3 and 4 should direct production of petitioner's grandson mr.mahesh dua in the court. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the respondent no.4 is the investigating officer who claims that the said kamal saigal was required to be arrested and the police staff had to enter the house from bathroom door forcibly and found that the said kamal saigal was hiding himself behind the cupboard. ..... the case of the petitioner is that the police officers, in particular, respondent no.4 who was the investigating officer was acting at the behest of complainant tarun kapoor who had registered case against the petitioner's husband and other referred to in f.i.r. ..... administering the said drug in this manner would in fact constitute an offence under the ndps act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the basic dispute in the present case is, whether the dgft who is the licensing authority under the foreign trade (development & regulation) act, 1992 is empowered to amend the licence with retrospective effect.13. .....
Tag this Judgment!