Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: kolkata appellate Year: 2011 Page 5 of about 54 results (0.030 seconds)

Mar 31 2011 (HC)

St. Teresa’s School Vs. the District Consumer Redressal Forum and or ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Mar-31-2011

..... which is rendered by the teacher in an educational institution can be regarded as a kind of service as defined in section 2(o) of the consumer protection act, 1986, in the case of smt. n. taneja & anr. v. calcutta district forum & ors. reported in air 1992 calcutta 95. in the said ..... consumer dispute between the parties and further since the guardian forum is not a consumer within the meaning of the word consumer as defined in the said act, such a dispute ought not to have been entertained by the district forum. accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the quashing of the said proceeding. 9 ..... authority regarding enhancement of the tuition fees and incidental charges of its students for the academic year 2009-10, by filing a complaint under the consumer protection act, 1986 before the district consumer redressal forum, birbhum. the said complaint was registered as c.e. case no. cc/35/o/2009. 5. the ..... education, teacher and student. it was further held therein that the contract, as referred to in section 2(g) certainly is not the contract as defined in section 2(o) because the very conception of contract cannot be introduced into the consumer protection act, so far as education, teacher and student are considered. 10. ..... decision, this honble court had the occasion to consider the definition of consumer and service given in the said act. it was held therein that the definition of service under section 2(o) if read with sections 2(c)(iii), 2(d)(iii) and 2( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2011 (HC)

State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Indian Jute Mills Association and or ...

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Mar-11-2011

..... should presume that the legislature does not use any unnecessary word and thus, the introduction of the adjective consumable before the noun stores was a conscious act of legislature. the next question is whether all the spare parts of a machinery used for manufacturing the taxed goods (in this case textile goods) ..... manufacture of goods being intended for use in the process of manufacturing or mining operations can be specified in the certificate of registration under the central sales tax act (74 of 1956).16. in the case of coastal chemicals ltd. etc. vs. commercial tax officer, a.p. and others (supra), upon which mrs ..... opposed the aforesaid contention of mrs. roy and have contended that the word consumption has a wider meaning and it is not necessary that by the act of consumption the commodity in question must be used up or destroyed and mixed in the taxed goods. in support of such contention, they relied upon ..... of the taxable goods and thus, the learned tribunal below erred in law in holding that spare parts are consumable stores within the meaning of the act. in other words, mrs. roy contends that the use of the adjective consumable before the noun stores is significant and unless such spare parts ..... referred to in clause (d) above; or(f) use in the execution of works contract; or(g) use as capital goods required, for the purpose of manufacture or resale of taxable goods or for execution of works contract, as the case may be, and purchases of such goods are capitalised in the books .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2011 (HC)

Sri Sujit Mukherjee. Vs. Smt. Bela Mukherjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata Appellate

Decided on : Mar-29-2011

..... had failed to honour the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the petitioner instituted title suit no.3277 of 2009 for specific performance of contract and injunction. the petitioner prayed for a decree for specific performance of the said agreement along with its amendment made in june, 2007 and also ..... , remit the whole penalty prescribed by this section. (2) every certificate under clause (a) of sub-section (1), shall, for the purposes of this act, be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. (3) where an instrument has been sent to the collector under section 38, subsection (2), the collector ..... shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: provided that (a) any ..... chatterjee that the trial judge grossly erred in the exercise of jurisdiction is acceptable. for this purpose one has to look into the provisions of the act. the same, to the extent relevant for a decision here, read as follows : 33. examination and impounding of instruments.(1) every person having ..... agreement in evidence. the trial judge having found that the agreement had not been adequately stamped consistent with the provisions contained in the indian stamp act impounded the same in terms of section 33 thereof. the trial judge was of the view that the said agreement, having regard to the .....

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 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!

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!


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