Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: kolkata appellate Year: 2011 Page 4 of about 54 results (0.034 seconds)

Feb 22 2011 (HC)

Gopal Chandra Das. Vs. Ranjit Kumar Roy

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-22-2011

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 has been preferred.3. now, the point for consideration is hether the order impugned should be sustained.4. upon hearing the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, i find that the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and default, etc. was filed in the year 1996. the original defendant was contesting the suit all along by filing a written statement. evidence of both the sides was completed on march 22, 2002 and the next date was fixed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2011 (HC)

Baidyanath Modak. Vs. Smt. Swapna Modak and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-15-2011

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 common place, such as, staircase, right to go to the roof for repair, etc. the learned trial judge allowed both the petitions by the order no.30 dated june 8, 1999. being aggrieved, the defendant nos.1 and others preferred a misc. appeal being misc. appeal no.84 of 1999 which was disposed of by the impugned order thereby reversing the order no.30 dated june 8, 1999 passed by the learned trial judge and giving liberty to the defendant nos. 14 & 15 to file separate objection against the application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2011 (HC)

Sambhu Nath SamantA. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Metya and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-14-2011

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 and it is his specific case that the suit property is not situated on the land of the plaintiff but on the government acquisitioned land of the 6th national highway. thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, a survey passed commissioner was appointed to hold local investigation at the instance of the petitioner to decide whether the land possessed by the defendant/petitioner herein appertains to dag no.303. the learned commissioner held an inspection in presence of both the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 2011 (HC)

Rabi Kumar Das. Vs. Sumitra Bala Dasi and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-10-2011

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 matter is that whether the learned trial judge was justified in rejecting the petition dated february 19, 2009 thereby not accepting the said deed of sale into evidence.4. upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, i find that the title appeal being title appeal no.17 of 1998 arising out the said suit was allowed on contest directing the learned trial court for fresh trial in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2011 (HC)

Dilip Kumar MahapatrA. Vs. Smt. Bela Mahapatra and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-23-2011

..... , 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!

Feb 18 2011 (HC)

Kankanika Mallick. Vs. Partha Pratim Mallick.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-18-2011

..... .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!

Feb 15 2011 (HC)

Sree Balajee Seva Samity and ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar Goyal and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-15-2011

..... ), siliguri in misc. judicial case no.32 of 1997.2. the matter relates to an application for amendment of an application under section 8 of the west bengal land reforms act, 1955. the petitioners and the opposite party nos.3 & 4 filed an application for pre-emption under section 8 of the west bengal land reforms ..... act, 1955 and that application was registered as misc. judicial case no.32 of 1997. the petitioners of that misc. case claimed pre-emption on the basis of that fact that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2011 (HC)

Firoz Khan Alias Md. Firoz and ors. Vs. Sk. Ansar Ali and anr.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-22-2011

..... 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 ..... by the impugned order. here, i find that the defendants have failed to comply with the provisions of section 17(1) of the 1956 act for a considerable period of more than 2 years continuously. the learned trial judge has rightly observed that financial stringency for such long period should ..... 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 ..... 25, 2007 filed by the plaintiffs, they sought for striking out defence against the delivery of possession under section 17(3) of the 1956 act. both the applications were disposed of, first by the order dated june 19, 2007 whereas the application of the defendants was rejected and the application ..... 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, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2011 (HC)

Manikyaram Chatuspati. Vs. Shrimati Sikha Dev and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-18-2011

..... question of 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.14. considering ..... defaulters since september, 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 to the ..... , there is 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 learned counsel for ..... up the c.o. no.3119 of 2008. the plaintiff/petitioner herein has challenged the order passed on the application under section 7(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1997. by the impugned order, the learned trial judge has observed that the defendant is not a defaulter in respect of payment of rent till date. being aggrieved by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2011 (HC)

Ranjita Apartment Owners’association and ors. Vs. Sri Prabir Kumar C ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Feb-14-2011

..... article 227 of the constitution of india is allowed. the impugned order is hereby set aside. the application dated january 5, 2009 under section 42 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 filed by the petitioners stands allowed.12. as a result, the misc. case being misc. case no.1126 of 2008 pending before the learned additional district judge, sixteenth ..... parties went to 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 judge, south ..... . being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. mr. s. p. roychowdhury, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that according to the scheme of the act when there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, the dispute between the parties shall be settled through the arbitration proceedings and for that reason at the initiation of one ..... 2009 passed by the learned additional district judge, sixteenth court, alipore in misc. case no.1126 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under section 42 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996.2. a dispute arose between the parties over certain points of an agreement dated january 30, 2002, which lays down a clause for settlement of the dispute by appointment .....

Tag this Judgment!


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