Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kolkata Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 79 results (0.011 seconds)

May 05 2005 (HC)

Niren Adhikary Vs. State of West Bengal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-05-2005

Reported in : 2006(4)CHN703

..... made by some villagers. however, he candidly admitted that he had not got any letter from his niece nor had he made any complaint to anybody except holding panchayat salisi (mediation) in bringing about the compromise between the couple. there is nothing unnatural that the unfortunate girl made so many complaints against her husband about the ill-treatment. there is also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2005 (HC)

Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Dulal Kumar Maity and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-04-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)CHN259

asok kumar ganguly, j. 1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1988 passed by the learned assistant district judge at contain in other suit no. 116 of 1980/other suit no. 29 of 1979.2. by the judgment and decree under appeal, the learned judge held that the probate of the will was earlier obtained fraudulently by the defendant no. 1, the appellant before us, and the same is liable to be revoked and, accordingly, the learned judge granted a decree for revocation of the grant of the probate of the will by a reasoned judgment. in the said judgment, it was held that the grant of the probate of the will obtained in judicial miscellaneous case no. 126 of 1961 in the court of the learned district delegate is liable to be revoked and the same was revoked by the judgment under appeal.3. the material facts of the case are that one upendra nath maity, father of the original plaintiff, viz. subodh kumar maity, died on 10.01.1960 leaving behind his wife, three sons including the plaintiff and a daughter. the wife of upendra nath was barada sundari, and three sons were subodh kumar maity, sasanka sekhar maity, sudhir kumar maity and his daughter's only son, was amiya kumar mahapatra.4. the original plaintiff, viz. subodh kumar maity, used to stay in calcutta in connection with his work and his wife, sons and daughter used to stay at the paternal house of subodh kumar at monoharchak. the said subodh kumar, since deceased, came to learn that the defendant no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Aniruddha Basu Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

jyotirmay bhattacharya, j.1. the petitioner has filed this writ petition by challenging the inaction on the part of the concerned respondent of kolkata municipal corporation for not considering the petitioner's application for mutation as well as his application for reassessment of the flat in question.2. the petitioner purchased a flat being flat no. 5 in a multi-storied building namely heera apartment situated at premises no. 42f, bedia danga, 2nd lane (presently new ballygunge road, p.s. kasba) from the erstwhile recorded owner thereof by a registered deed of conveyance dated 29th october, 2004.3. immediately after purchase of the said flat, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name as owner of the said flat in the place of the petitioner's vendor in the municipal records. the requisite formalities which are required to be complied with, has all been completed by the petitioner in this regard.4. the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the municipal authority, as the said authority, in spite, of receipt of the petitioner's said application for mutation as back as on 1st march, 2005, has not taken any step in this regard till date.5. prior to the purchase of the said flat by the petitioner, the said flat was let out to a tenant by the erstwhile owner thereof. accordingly, the annual valuation of the said premises was assessed by the municipal authority by taking into account the actual rent which was payable by the tenant in respect of the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

State of West Bengal Vs. Kabita Agarwal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-13-2005

Reported in : 2005(2)CHN366

altamas kabir, a.c.j. 1. the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 filed a writ application, being w.p. no. 980 of 2003, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to mutate her name in respect of plot no. 76, block 'dl' in sector-ii, bidhan nagar, kolkata, upon quashing the letters dated 15th october, 2001 and 9th july, 2002, being annexures p-12 and p-14 to the writ petition.2. the case as made out in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is a beneficiary of the will of one satya narayan khowala, along with her two sisters-in-law, in respect of the aforesaid plot. according to the writ petitioner, by a letter dated 10th december, 1986, the state government granted and demised the aforesaid plot measuring 4.20 cottahs in favour of satya narayan khowala, said to be the uncle of the writ petitioner, and his two sons, khem chand khowala and mahesh kumar khowala, each having a 1/3rd undivided interest in the demised land. according to the writ petitioner, by a family arrangement made on 1.2.1996 between satya narayan khowala and his two sons, it was agreed that the leasehold land would stand transferred and allotted to satya narayan khowala exclusively and his two sons thereby relinquished their right, title and interest in the said land. it was also agreed that the family arrangement would be irrevocable and binding on the legal heirs of khem chand khowala and mahesh kumar khowala.3. subsequent to the family arrangement, by a will dated 21.1.1997 satya narayan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2005 (HC)

Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department Vs. Ramniwas Goyal M ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-18-2005

Reported in : (2005)3CALLT499(HC),2006(3)CHN555

1. in this appeal the judgment of the learned single judge of this court allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondent is called in question. by that judgment, the learned judge set aside the order passed by the principal secretary, urban development department whereby he had turned down the application for mutation made by present respondent shree ramniwas goyal memorial trust. few facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.2. on 6.3.1986, a lease was executed by the state government in favour of one sri anil kumar bhattacharya of the government land measuring about five and half cottah for residential purpose. a lease deed was brought into existence for that purpose. in 1992, sri bhattacharya made a will of the above land giving away 50% to one smt. geeta devi agarwal and 50% to one smt. kanta devi agarwal. after the demise of sri anil kumar bhattacharya, the two ladies, viz., geeta devi and kanta devi obtained probate of the above will and were in possession thereof. they were of course the joint lessees. in 1995, geeta devi and kanta devi applied for the mutation in their favour. there was delay in deciding the application, and, therefore, a writ petition has been filed in the high court wherein the court directed the authorities to consider the prayer for mutation. on 29.9.1995, the mutation in their favour was refused by the authorities. therefore, a further writ petition came to be filed being c.o. no. 20041(w) of 1995. that writ petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Shrenik Kumar Singhee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : (2006)1CALLT435(HC),2006(1)CHN540

jyotirmay bhattacharya, j.1. on receipt of an information from the controller, calcutta thika tenancy to the effect that the premises no. 17, garcha first lane, kolkata - 700 019 is a thika property and the state of west bengal is the owner thereof, the calcutta municipal corporation, by its letter dated 7th february, 2001 being annexure 'c to this writ petition appearing at page 28 thereof invited the petitioner being the recorded owner of said premises to be present on 27th march, 2001 at 1 p.m. in the chamber of the assessor-collector (south) in connection with the proceeding for proposed change of ownership in the municipal record.2. immediately on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed his objection to such proposed change of ownership in the municipal record by contending inter alia that since the petitioner who is the absolute owner of the said property is in possession thereof and the said property was never a thika tenanted property, alteration in the municipal records as proposed is not necessary. a copy of the said objection was also given to the thika controller, calcutta.3. since neither the kolkata municipal corporation nor the thika controller took any step to redress the grievance of the petitioner against such illegal attempt for recording the proposed change of ownership in the municipal record, the petitioner moved this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke, cancel, rescind and/ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2005 (HC)

Subhendu Sengupta Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-24-2005

Reported in : [2006]145STC620(Cal)

vikas shridhar sirpurkar, c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge of this court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. in that writ petition the petitioner had challenged his dismissal from the service as a clerk in the bank after a departmental enquiry was held against him.2. the petitioner/appellant was working at the relevant time in bhukailash branch of the central bank. a chargesheet came to be filed against him dated 2nd july, 1993 alleging, inter alia, that though he had received an amount of rs. 1,13,136.85/- under five heads and though he was duty bound to deposit the same, he did not actually deposit the entire collected money with the bank. in the chargesheet it is suggested that in place of depositing the collected amount stated above, he deposited merely rs. 67,998.46p. and thus he had committed the defalcation. ultimately, this chargesheet came to be corrected vide a corrigendum where it was suggested that the amount of rs. 9,069.83p. shown in the chargesheet as the deposited amount should be read as rs. 12,559/-. in short by the corrigendum it was suggested that he had committed a defalcation of rs. 41,539.30 paise and not rs. 45,139.39 paise as originally stated. a full-fledged enquiry was proceeded against the appellant/delinquent officer. initially his explanation was called in writing. it seems that he sought for time but did not give a complete explanation and instead chose to give a statement .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2005 (HC)

Ganesh Chandra Prodhan and ors. Vs. Maya Sinha and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-16-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)CHN128

bhaskar bhattacharya, j.1. this first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of some of the respondents in proceedings for revocation of probate and is directed against order no. 10 dated august 6, 2004 passed by the additional district judge, 1st court, alipore in revocation case no. 25 of 2004 thereby allowing an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in part and restraining the present appellants from inducting anybody in the property covered by the will till the disposal of revocation proceedings.2. there is no dispute that one gour chandra prodhan, the father of the parties was the original owner of the property. it appears from record that on the death of the said gour chandra prodhan, the present appellant nos. 1 and 2 applied for grant of probate of the alleged last will and testament executed by the said gour chandra prodhan and the probate court granted probate with the consent of all the heirs of the deceased testator including that of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are the married daughters of the testator.3. such probate was granted on 25th july, 1983. by the said will the property involved herein was given to the sons of the deceased excluding the married daughters.4. it further appears from record that after getting probate of the said will, the present appellants nos. 1 and 2 mutated their names in the register of the kolkata municipal corporation and subsequently in the year 2002 demolished the existing building and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2005 (HC)

State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and ors ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-16-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)CHN241

d.k. seth, j. prelude:1. these two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. the appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned single judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent sanjeevani projects (p) ltd. and green valley towers (p) ltd. respectively.1.1. in course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective counsel for the parties addressed the court on the merit of the appeal. therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. at the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. since the court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ petitions be called for and be decided along with the appeals.1.2. accordingly, the records of the respective writ petitions were called for. the writ petitions and the appeals were heard on merit. the respective counsel for the parties had argued their respective cases extensively for a number of days. in the circumstances we propose to dispose of the appeal and the writ petitions together as hereafter.the writ petitions : the prayers : the interim orders : the appeals :2. the respondents as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2005 (HC)

Lalta Prosad Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Controller, Calcutta Thika Tenancy a ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-08-2005

Reported in : (2005)3CALLT365(HC),2005(3)CHN125

d.k. seth, j.1. section 6(3) of the calcutta thika and other tenancies and land (acquisition and regulation) act, 1981 prescribes that the interests of thika tenants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the state under sub-section (1) shall be heritable and shall not be transferable except inter se amongst the heirs and existing co-shares interest or to the prospective heirs, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 7.2. section 6(1) prescribes the incidence of tenancies in respect of lands vested in the state under the 1981 act.3. section 7(1) permits the thika tenants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the state to let out in whole or in part structures existing on, or constructed after, the date of commencement of the 1981 act on such lands but not any vacant land or any part thereof. whereas sub-section (2) prescribes that any transfer or agreement for transfer, whether oral or in writing, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 6 or sub-section (1) of section 7 shall be of no effect whatsoever and the land and structure shall stand vested in the state in accordance with the prescribed procedure. section 18a prescribes for penalty on account of contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the act as an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 (five) years and also with fine which may extend to rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). but under sub-section (2) .....

Tag this Judgment!


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