Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The petitioner is the defendant in T.S. 72 of 2001, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Additional Court at Alipore. It is a suit for ejectment and damages. 2. Exercising his right conferred by Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereafter the WBPT Act), the petitioner filed an application claiming determination as to whether relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant exists or not, and in the event of the Court finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties to the suit, to determine the quantum of dues on account of rent payable by the petitioner and to grant him easy instalment for liquidating the same. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, opposite party herein, by filing a written objection. 4. By an order dated December 4, 2008, the application was disposed of by the trial Court on contest. It was held therein that though relations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. An application made by the sub-tenant (hereafter the petitioner) praying for its addition as party defendant in Ejectment Suit No.165 of 2006 instituted by the landlord (hereafter the opposite party no.1) against the tenant (hereafter the opposite party no.2) has been rejected by order dated September 20, 2010 of the trial Court. Propriety of the said order is questioned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dated November 29, 2010. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner contended that from the materials on record it is clear that there is collusion between the opposite parties 1 and 2 and, therefore, the trial Court erred in law in rejecting the application for addition of party. He invited the Courts attention to an application filed by the opposite party no.1 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code) read with Section 151 thereof. According to him, a judgment and decree on admission for r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The petitioners predecessor-in-interest, Radhika Murmu, was one of several defendants in Title Suit No.89/2007, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Asansol, Burdwan, instituted by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. It is a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, alternatively for partition of disputed land by metes and bounds. 2. On the death of Radhika Murmu, the petitioners have been substituted in his place and stead. In course of progress of the suit, the defendants/petitioners filed five copies of photographs for exhibiting the same as secondary evidence. For the purpose of identification, the photographs were marked X to X-4. The photographer, Mr. Anil Kumar Das, was witness no.4 for the defendants/petitioners. He had deposed on September 2, 2008 to the effect that the negatives of the photographs (X to X-4) are not in existence, having been destroyed by burning after preservation for one year. 3. A petition was filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 21, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 2004 thereby directing the plaintiffs to file the original rent receipts. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted the said suit being Title Suit No.128 of 2004 praying for a decree of eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, sub-letting, addition, alteration and etc. against the defendant/opposite party before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah. 2. The defendant/petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. After appearance, the defendant filed an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge and then a revision application was preferred by the petitioner. That revision a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. These two applications are directed against the order nos.20 dated May 17, 2007, order no.2 dated February 16, 2005 and order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.141 of 2004 thereby holding that the misc. case is maintainable and rejecting an application for amendment of the misc. case. The two applications have arisen out of the orders as stated above at the instance of the rival parties one against the others, and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.3211 of 2007 first. C.O. No.3211 of 2007 This application is at the instance of the petitioner of the Misc. case and is directed against the order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the petition. The short fact is that the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for cancellation of the agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Mr. Mitra appearing for the petitioners has prayed for leave to move this art.226 petition as an unlisted motion. Though no case has been stated why the petitioners should be permitted to move the petition as an unlisted motion, Mr. Mitra has submitted that since the petitioners require supply of police guards at their expense immediately so that they may run their factory smoothly and notice of the petition has been given to the State and the private respondents who are represented by their respective counsel, this Court should permit the petitioners to move this petition as an unlisted motion. 2. In view of the above-noted situation, I think it will be appropriate to permit the petitioners to move the petition as an unlisted motion, and hence I grant the leave. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the principal grievance of the petitioners is that the Commissioner of Kolkata Police to whom an application dated April 9,2011(at p.132) has been submitted for supply of p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This is an application under Sections 397(1)/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, refusing thereby the release of the petitioners on their P.R. Bond in G.R. Case No. 958 of 2010 arising out of Mahishadal Police Station Case No. 218 of 2010 dated 10.9.2010 under Sections 363/365/366A/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the other girls have already been released on their P.R. Bond vide order dated 3.11.2010 and 24.1.2011 passed by the Honble Court in two different revision applications. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the copy of the order sheet annexed with this application wherefrom it is found that the statements of these petitioners have already been reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
This application under Article 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken out by Sayaraddin @ Chhayaraddi Molla challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 05-02-10 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge at Alipore in Criminal Motion No. 52 of 2010 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for condo nation of delay in filing of the criminal motion under section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected. The opposite party, Jamila Bibi filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself and her minor son in the court of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, 24 Parganas(S), Alipore which was registered as Misc. Case 403/04. In that proceeding, Jamila Bibi filed an application for interim maintenance. The Ld. Magistrate, 1st Court at Alipore upon hearing both the parties rejected the prayer for interim maintenance on 18-04-07 on the ground that the status of Jamila Bibi and her son was under challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. By an order dated January 11, 2011 the Division Bench of this Court rejected the petitioners application for contempt alleging violation of an order passed by a Division Bench on June 28, 2005. The only ground for dismissing the said application was that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. That order gave rise to the filing the present application for review and a tedious argument thereafter. In the application for review it was alleged that one Ashutosh Kundu, since deceased, was the father of the petitioner and had onefourth share of land in a certain Mouza and three-fourth share of land as licensee. 2. The Revenue Officer, Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Minakha Block, by a notice dated March 8, 1995 initiated a proceeding under S. 14 T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for determination of the ceiling area. The late Ashutosh Kundu filed a writ petition before this Court inter alia against the said p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The famous temple of Lord Srinathji is at Nathdwara in the State of Rajasthan. There is also another temple of Lord Srinathji at Kolkata. The Nathdwara Temple Board, constituted under the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, runs the administration of Srinathji Temple at Nathdwara. Sriathji Temple at Kolkata is managed by Srinathji Bhandar, namely, the appellant no. 1 herein. The workmen represented by Srinathji Bhandar Employees Union raised a demand for enhancement of the salary and ultimately, the dispute raised by the said Union was referred by the Government of West Bengal to the 8 th Industrial Tribunal by the Order of Reference dated 24 th May, 2000 for adjudication of the following issues: 1. Whether the demand for increase in salary of the workmen is justified. 2. What relief, if any, are the workmen entitled to? 2. The learned Judge of the Tribunal adjudicated the aforesaid issues and passed an award on 7 th August, 2002 upon holding that the demand for increase in salary of the ...
Tag this Judgment!