Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: kolkata appellate Year: 2011 Page 3 of about 54 results (0.061 seconds)

Feb 25 2011 (HC)

Golap Kanti Chattopadhyay Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-25-2011

..... will while determining the ceiling limit of the petitioner herein. 19. most unfortunately, the appellate authority under section 54 of the w.b.l.r. act namely, the d.l.&l.r.o.;, hoogly while deciding the appeal being case no. 37 of 2004 did not appreciate the illegalities committed by ..... .l.&l.r.o.;, therefore, had specific knowledge in respect of the unprobated will. accordingly, the b.l.&l.r.o.; had no occasion to act on the basis of the aforesaid unprobated will while determining the ceiling limit of the petitioner. 18. the b.l.&l.r.o.; concerned upon taking ..... hari charan chattopadhyay would devolve upon the aforesaid five successors and the said five successors must inherit 1/5 th share each under the hindu succession act, 1956. 16. the petitioner herein is entitled to only 1/5 th share of the property of late hari charan chattopadhyay, who died intestate and ..... disposed of by this court on 21 st january, 1971 declaring the aforesaid notice under section 10(2) of the w.b.e.a. 9. act served on hari charan chattopadhyay as invalid and without jurisdiction. therefore, all the five successors of hari charan chattopadhyay were recognised by this court as legal ..... in intestesi. the aforesaid legal heirs accordingly, inherited one-fifth share each in respect of the property owned by hari charan chattopadhyay under the hindu succession act, 1956. 8. in view of the death of hari charan chattopadhyay, his legal heirs and successors were substituted in the aforesaid writ petition. the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2011 (HC)

Barid Baran Laha and ors. Vs. Manjuri Ghoshal (Claiming as Laha)

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Jan-21-2011

..... by itself cannot wipe out the veracity of marriage certificate of 1993 showing marriage in between respondent /defendant and pijush kanti laha under special marriage act, 1954. a lady is not bound to use the surname of her husband in all places and she may use her maiden surname or ..... original marriage certificate of 1993 (ext. b) to show, at least prima facie, marriage in between herself and pijush kanti laha under special marriage act, 1954. it is true that even after issuance of said marriage certificate in 1993 present respondent/defendant used the surname of her previous husband namely ..... out either the divorce decree in between defendant and her former husband or the marriage held between respondent and pijush kanti laha under special marriage act.(5) there was neither any pleading nor any evidence that the possession of the appellant / plaintiff was threatened by the respondent defendant at any ..... though one certified copy of decree of divorce dated 21.04.1974 (ext. a) was filed by the respondent/defendant but it was not acted upon.(2) respondent /defendant also filed one marriage certificate of 1993 showing alleged marriage with pijush kanti laha but said marriage was never consummated.(3 ..... had no right, title and interest over the suit property. pijush kanti laha since deceased married defendant on 23.12.93 under special marriage act. pijush kanti laha expired on 8.10.94 under suspicious circumstances. pijush kantis father balai chandra laha tried to deny the right of ownership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2011 (HC)

Sabra Khatoon. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-25-2011

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 flat with m/s. shrachi leathertex private limited company at premises no.23, marquis street under police station new market as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them. amongst other clauses, the petitioner was to get the said flat bearing no.5f having an area of 1044 square feet. at the time of getting possession, the petitioner noticed that she got the flat with an area of 762 square feet instead of 1044 square feet as per agreement. since she got less area she took appropriate steps before the consumer forum.2. in the meantime, the assessor collector (south), opposite party no.2 herein, assessed the annual valuation of the said flat to the tune of rs.47,660/-. the petitioner raised a dispute. the hearing officer took up the matter and he determined the annual valuation of rs.31,760/- with effect from third quarter of 2002- 03. being aggrieved, he filed the misc. appeal which was disposed of by the impugned order holding the annual valuation as rs.23,820/-. the petitioner was not satisfied with such determination and then she filed this revisional application. now, the question is whether the judgment and order under challenge should be sustained.3. upon hearing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2011 (HC)

Sk. Qumru Alam. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-15-2011

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 flat with m/s. shrachi leathertex private limited company at premises no.23, marquis street under police station new market as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them. amongst other clauses, the petitioner was to get the said flat bearing no.se having an area of 1540.50 square feet. at the time of getting possession, the petitioner noticed that he got the flat with an area of 1050 square feet instead of 1540.50 square feet as per agreement. since he got less area he took appropriate steps before the consumer forum.2. in the meantime, the assessor collector (south), opposite party no.2 herein, assessed the annual valuation of the said flat to the tune of rs.69,320/-. the petitioner raised a dispute. the hearing officer took up the matter and he fixed the annual valuation of rs.46,380/- with effect from third quarter of 2002- 03. being aggrieved, he filed the misc. appeal which was disposed of by the impugned order holding the annual valuation as rs.34,760/-. the petitioner was not satisfied with such determination and he then filed this revisional application. now, the question is whether the judgment and order under challenge should be sustained.3. upon hearing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2011 (HC)

Surajit Mazumdar. Vs. Marjorie Mazumdar and anr.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-17-2011

1. this application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.30 dated june 16, 2009 and the order no.57 dated june 17, 2010 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), second court, alipore in title suit no.17 of 2006.2. the short fact is that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed the said title suit being title suit no.17 of 2006 praying for several counts of declarations, permanent injunction and other reliefs. the contention of the plaintiffs is that they are the joint 50% owners in respect of the 3 storied building at 10/1/c, swinhoe street under police station gariahat, kolkata 700 019. the defendant / opposite party is the wife of late saroj kumar mazumdar and the latter was the uncle of the plaintiffs. the suit properties originally belonged to late kamal basini mazumdar and by a deed of gift dated august 30, 1967, she gifted the said property in equal shares to the plaintiffs jointly to the extent of 50% and to one binay krishna mazumdar, paternal uncle of the plaintiffs to the balance 50% share and thus, the plaintiffs became the 50% owners of the undivided properties including the suit premises, as described in the schedule to the plaint.3. thereafter the binay krishna mazumdar executed a will on november 18, 1983 in favour of his daughter, proforma defendant and that will was duly probated. thus, she became the rest 50% owner of the properties. the husband of the defendant resided permanently in england and he seldom came .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2011 (HC)

Snow View Properties Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-17-2011

..... discussions, i am of the opinion that the learned recovery officer has not exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. the learned recovery officer cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction. so, this revisional court exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india should not interfere with the impugned orders. this application is not maintainable. accordingly, this ..... 30 of the act of 1993. but instead of doing that, this application under article 227 of the constitution of india has been preferred. the decision of air 2001 sc 3208 has clearly ..... article 227 of the constitution of india is not maintainable when remedy of appeal is available under section 30 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993. thus, he submits that the present application is not maintainable. there is no doubt that an appeal to the concerned tribunal is maintainable against the impugned orders under section ..... of taking such measures may be frustrated. the learned recovery officer is authorised to attach and sell of the properties of the certificate debtors under section 25 of the 1993 act. so, the learned recovery officer was within his competence to pass the restraint order to ensure recovery of the dues of the certificate debtors.6. mr. s. p. roychowdhury, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2011 (HC)

Pankaj Kumar HazrA. Vs. Dr. Arabinda Nayak and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-15-2011

..... which was at the time of agreement of sale on may 31, 1987. if sale deed is to be executed on the basis of the decree for specific performance of contract to be passed, such valuation should be the consideration in the matter of calculation of stamp duty and the fees for registration. so, i do not find any illegality in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2011 (HC)

Jarina Bibi and ors. Vs. Md. Rasid Ansari and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-25-2011

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 temporary injunction was allowed on may 4, 2005. being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the said misc. appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.2. now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, i find that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the said title suit for declaration of title, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2011 (HC)

Smt. Mamata at Mala Bhandari. Vs. Sri Sanjib Bhattacharjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-23-2011

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 the order dated february 10, 2006. subsequently, on july 16, 2007 the defendant no.2 filed an application for stay. that was rejected by the order impugned. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.2. now, the point for consideration is whether the learned trial judge was justified in passing the impugned orders. upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, i find that the impugned orders lays down two matters; one for addition of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2011 (HC)

Sambhunath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Maniklal Gander and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-22-2011

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 application of the applicants was rejected by the impugned order. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.2. now, the point for decision is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, i find that the plaintiff was very much aware of the death of his mother and so, the plaintiff could have taken appropriate steps for substitution of the heirs of the deceased defendant no.6. as per .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //