Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kolkata Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 72 results (0.015 seconds)

Jul 24 2003 (HC)

Park Hotel Limited Vs. Ics Club Marketing (India) Private Limited and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-24-2003

Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR495(Cal),2004(2)CHN1

..... connection with this contract, the matter shall be resolved by appointing two arbitrators, one by each party hereto. the arbitrators thus appointed shall appoint a mediator before entering upon the reference. the decision of the mediator shall be final and binding on both parties under the provision of the indian arbitration act of 1940, as amended from time to time.if either .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2003 (HC)

Sri Premendra Kr. Mitra Vs. Amarendra Kr. Mitra

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-27-2003

Reported in : (2003)3CALLT369(HC),2005(4)CHN245

a.k. mitra, j.1. this second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1997 passed by the learned additional district judge, 5th court at alipore in title appeal no. 11/1995 affirming the judgment and decree dated august 10, 1994 passed by the learned assistant district judge, sealdah in title suit no. 76/93.2. the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for partition valued at rs. 60,000/-. the case as has been made out by the plaintiff is, inter alia, as follows:3. by a registered deed of conveyance dated 10.7.1979 the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased a piece and parcel of land measuring more or less three cottahs being portion of the then premises no. 2/2a dr. panchanan mitra lane, p.s. beliaghata. the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the property and developed and mutated their names in the calcutta municipal corporation. after mutation the said land was renumbered as premises no. 2/2n dr. panchanan mitra lane being separated from the original premises no. 2/2a, dr. panchanan mitra lane. after purchase and after mutation both the plaintiff and the defendant jointly got a plan sanctioned by the calcutta municipal corporation and constructed one storeyed building consisting of two flats distinctively divided by the staircase in the middle. it has also been stated in the plaint that the contribution of the fund towards the cost of construction was equally made. the construction was made under the supervision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2003 (HC)

Barbara Taylor Bradford Vs. Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-16-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CHN448,2004(28)PTC474(Cal),[2003]47SCL445(Cal)

ajoy nath ray, j. 1. this is an appeal from an interlocutory order in a copyright action. the order is dated 30th of june, 2003, when his lordship refused injunction to the plaintiffs/applicants who are also the appellants before us. however, the order directed furnishing of a bank guarantee to the extent of rs. 25 lakhs, such guarantee to be given by the respondents.2. the suit was filed in calcutta on or about the 7th of may, 2003 by the plaintiffs, who are the authoress and her husband of the book named 'a woman of substance'. the copyright in that book has been, or is likely to be, allegedly infringed. claims for infringement are also made with regard to two sequels of the said book and the serialised television version thereof which were produced by the authoress' husband namely the 2nd appellant.3. the complaint is against a serial called 'karishma - the miracle of destiny' which has been financed and is quite ready to be produced and televised by the 1st respondent who are a public limited company. they bear the sahara name, and under that name there are several business undertakings running in india.4. the respondents say that they intend to televise many more than two hundred episodes, in the evenings, not covering weekends starting from 9.30 p.m. according to them, eighty episodes have been completed and are ready to be televised. they say that they have spent a lot of money over two years for this project and the expenses are to be counted in rupees tens of crores .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2003 (HC)

Smt. Kabita Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Smt. Santi Devi Bajaj and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-04-2003

Reported in : (2003)3CALLT485(HC)

a.k. mitra, j. 1. these two second appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 30.6.1994 and decreed dated 7.7.1994 respectively passed by the learned additional district judge, 14th court allpore, dist. 24 parganas (south) in title appeal no. 87 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st january, 1992 passed by the learned munsif, 3rd court at alipore in title suit no. 221 of 1981 and also the judgment and decree dated 13th june and 7th july, 1994 respectively passed by the learned additional district judge, 14th court at alipore in title appeal no. 88/92 and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st january, 1992 passed by the learned munsif, 3rd court at alipore in title suit no. 252 of 1984.2. title suit no. 221 of 1981 and title suit no. 252 of 1984 were taken up together for analogous hearing and the learned munsif by a single judgment disposed of the two title suits. accordingly, two appeals being 87/92 and 88/92 were preferred. the appellate court below also heard the two appeals analogously since the two appeals arising out of two suits were heard analogously and the appellate court below by a single judgment disposed of the two appeals mentioned above.3. let us take the case of title suit no. 221 of 1981 first. in this suit of 1981 the case as has been made out by the plaintiff is, inter alia, as follows:the suit land involves a brick-built structure in and over the land measuring an area of 3 kottachs and 5 chittacks and 39 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2003 (HC)

State of West Bengal Vs. Birendra Nath Sarkar

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-30-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CHN615

g.c. de, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.77 passed by the learned additional district judge, balurghat, west dinajpur in title appeal no. 63/1976 affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1976 passed by the learned munsif, balurghat in title suit no. 92/1973.2. the plaintiff birendra nath sarkar filed a title suit being t.s. no. 92/73 praying for declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in 'a' schedule as well as 'b' schedule of the plaint, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. the plaintiffs case in brief is that the owner of the suit plots was one kader bux mondal who settled the suit plots along with other lands to his sons abdul hadi and abdul hakim and in the rs records-of-right their names were duly recorded. thereafter, on the basis of two separate sale deeds executed and registered on 4.3.58, the recorded owners sold the suit property to the present plaintiff and also to arati rani sarkar, and subsequently arati rani sarkar sold her purchased property to the plaintiff on the basis of another sale deed dated 22.1.62. the plaintiff started possessing the purchased property in khas, but suddenly the respondent, the state of west bengal tried to dispossess him from the said lands alleging that those were vested lands. hence, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction restraining the state of west bengal from disturbing his peaceful possession in the suit lands .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2003 (HC)

Smt. Ashalata Mahapatra and ors. Vs. Kamal Krishna Goswami and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-06-2003

Reported in : (2003)3CALLT424(HC)

a.k. mitra, j,1. this second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment delivered and decree passed by the learned additional district judge, 2nd court, midnapore in title appeal no. 229 of 1976 dated 11.5.1977 and 18.5.1977 respectively reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1976 and 20.3.1976 respectively passed by the learned munsif, 2nd court at midnapore in title suit no. 231 of 1966.2. the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the appellants herein. the case as has been made out by the plaintiff kamal krishna goswami in the plaint is, inter alia, as follows:the plaintiff (respondent no. 1 herein) stated in the plaint that the suit land belonged to the mother of the plaintiff siddeswari debya who purchased this land by an auction sale and has been possessing the suit land by praying rents to the government after mutation of her name. the said siddeswari debya used to own and possess the suit land along with other lands. remaining in possession of the said land including the suit land siddheswari died leaving her son, the plaintiff and daughter mayalata and she died long before the promulgation of hindu succession act. siddheswari executed a will bequeathing her properties in favour of her only son, the plaintiff. after attaining majority the plaintiff took charge of the properties from one sri bhuban mahan pal who used to look after his properties during his minority. the defendant no. 1 that is sri hrishikesh pahari used to reside near the house of the plaintiff and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2003 (HC)

Premlall Seal and ors. Vs. Sm. Basanti Seal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-24-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Cal246,(2003)3CALLT527(HC)

d.k. seth, j.1. mr. bachawat had raised two questions viz. (i) whether without the pleadings and without any issue being framed and without any evidence being led a new case of family arrangement could be made out by the court on the basis of a letter of complaint (ext-j) by the admitted owner against the alleged tenant-licensee being the son of the owner governed under dayabhaga school of hindu law; and (ii) whether ext-j could create or extinguish any right in favour of such son in respect of property, which is, admittedly, valued more than rs. 100/- in view of section 17(1)(b) of the registration act and could ext-j be read to contradict the contents of a registered document (ext-1) having regard to section 91 of the evidence act.2. mr. sanyal had replied that ext-j was not a document creating or extinguishing right in immovable property worth above rs. 100/- but an evidence to the creation of a family arrangement, between members of the family in order to avoid misunderstanding and troubles between themselves and for buying peace, which can very well be made orally in the form of a licence irrevocable without creating any new case not pleaded having regard to the evidence already on record and decided on the basis of the issues framed with regard to which parties had understood each others' case and went to trial in a case of an old hindu joint family where the sons are treated as part of the family having right to reside in the ancestral home.3. in elaborating their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2003 (HC)

Suniti Bala Debnath Vs. Lal Parshi Debi and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-23-2003

Reported in : (2004)2CALLT352(HC)

a.k. mitra. j.1. two suits being t.s. no. 168/70 and 150/71 have been tried analogously for the sake of convenience inasmuch as some common questions were involved in both the suits.2. t.s. no. 168/70 was filed by sm. suniti bala debnath against defendant no. 1 ramkishan dube (presently deceased) and substituted by defendant nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as his legal representatives. the case made out by suniti bala debnath is inter alia as follows:the suit property that is premises no. 299, gopal lal thakur road, originally belonged to late hemanta kr. roy on his death. his two sons and grand-sons sold the same to one jagatjyoti seal in 1931. two sons of late hemanta kr. roy are (1) sailen kr. roy and (2) arun kr. roy. said jagatjyoti sold the property in 1935 to smt. manada sundari dasi. said manada sundari sold the property to one madan chandra chanda, her grand-son in 1945. madan chanda sold the property to suniti bala on 28.5.1969. allegedly, ramkishan was a tenant under madan chandra chanda. after the purchase madan asked ramkishan to attorn the tenancy and pay rent to madan. ramkishan refused to pay rent, even despite demand in writing he had also sublet the property to defendant nos. 2 to 5 allegedly without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. consequently, the tenancy of ramkishan was determined by a notice to quit and on his failure to vacate the premises as required by the notice suniti bala filed t.s. no. 168/70. in w.s. filed by her in t.s. no. 150/71 suniti bala has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2003 (HC)

Smt. Asha Agarwal and ors. Vs. Mohan Sharma and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-23-2003

Reported in : (2004)2CALLT164(HC)

rajendra nath sinha, j.1. this is to consider an application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure being aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2003 passed by sri sukumar chakraborty, additional sessions judge, 4th court, midnapore in criminal revision no. 22 of 1994 affirming the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by sri m. murmu, executive magistrate, midnapore in m.r. case no. 104(s) of 1986 under section 147 of code of criminal procedure directing the dwaraka prosad agarwal (since deceased) to remove the illegal construction or to demolish the construction of brick wall and iron gate of the premises.2. in short the petition is that r.s. plot no. 868 of mouza kharagpur khas jungle measuring an area of 0.10 acre of land belonged to one gorelala. on 7.7.1959 he sold 7 decimals out of 10 decimals of land to one pyarelal and the rest 3 decimals of land was sold to badami devi on 25.1.62. pyarelal purchased badami's 3 decimals of land on 23.6.1964, thus, became the owner of 10 decimals of land and sold the same to the petitioners's predecessor-in-interest, dwaraka prosad agarwal (since deceased) on 22.9.77. he mutated his name with the municipal authority, paid municipal taxes and obtained a sanction plan from the office of kharagpur municipality and constructed a house thereon as per plan. the opposite party no. 1 to 7 having no right, title and interest in the said property forcibly occupied a small tin-shed room in a separate room. after purchase of the said land by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2003 (HC)

Abhik Kumar Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-18-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)CHN548

ashim kumar banerjee, j.1. short question involved in this appeal is whether the government is entitled to issue a supplementary licence to an existing licence holder under rule 15(2) of the bengal excise rules, 1993 or the under rules, 2003 when there had been restrictions imposed by the government order that a person having excise licence is disqualified to apply for another excise licence at the new .2. the appellants are the existing excise licence holders for country spirit. similarly the private respondents were having excise licence for pachwai. by introduction of foreign liquor, country spirit as well as colour and flavoured spirit, pachwai has lost its business worth and as such the government decided to give them supplementary licence to deal with country spirit as well as the country spirit licence holders were offered supplementary licence to deal with ram and beer. the present disputes pertain to these two groups of licence holders. according to the appellants the government was not entitled to issue supplementary licence to the pachwai licence holders to deal with country spirit. hence, this writ petition.3. the writ petition was heard and disposed of by barin ghosh, j. by his judgment and order dated march 13, 2001 appearing at pages 238-261 of the paper book. his lordship ultimately held that rules do provide distinct method and manner of serving pachwai to consumers but that can not stand in any way of permitting pachwai vendors to sale other intoxicating .....

Tag this Judgment!


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