Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: kolkata Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 110 results (0.016 seconds)

Mar 20 2012 (HC)

Coal India Limited Versu Anadian Commercial Corporation

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-20-2012

..... petition was allowed to progress ex parte. the philippine party applied for reconsideration of the matter and the trial court temporarily stayed the annulment proceedings and referred the dispute to mediation. in the enforcement proceedings, the trial court issued a writ of execution. the philippine court of appeals set aside the writ upon accepting the philippine partys argument that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2012 (HC)

Sukhendu Das Vs. Rita Mukherjee

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-04-2012

..... that the marital institution must be preserved at the cost of great sacrifice by both the spouses we would least expect that the parties would give us a chance to mediate, none of them obliged us. they did not possibly think it fit considering the plight of their lone child who was deprived of her fathers affection since her birth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2012 (HC)

Jogendra Kristo Dutt Vs. Nripendra Kristo Dutt and Others

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-15-2012

1 g.a. no. 2447 of 2011 g.a. no. 2442 of 2011 g.a. no. 2578 of 2011 c.s. no. 592 of 1975 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction jogendra kristo dutt .........plaintiffs -vs - nripendra kristo dutt and; others ..............defendantsfor the petitioner / : mr. sakya sen, advocate with the first defendant group in mr. anirban pramanik, advocate g.a. no. 2442 of 2011for the petitioner/ : mr. h.k. mitra, senior advocate with the first defendant group in mr. sondwip mukerjee, g.a. no. 2578 of 2011 mr. m. seal, advocatesfor the petitioner/ : mr. ahin choudhuri, senior advocate with the first defendant group in ms. lopita banerjee, advocate g.a. no. 2447 of 2011heard on : 07.02.12 and; 08.02.2012.judgment on : 15th february, 2012i.p. mukerji, j.this partition and administration suit has become extremely contentious between the parties.three applications were taken out, each by a party or a group of parties. the application which was urged with the greatest force was the one taken out by 2the defendant no. 3(a), (b) and (c), marked as g.a. no. 2447 of 2011. this application contains the following material prayers: "(a) injunction restraining the defendant nos.1(a) and 1(b) from raising any objection whatsoever for preventing the works of partition; (b)...................................... (c) necessary direction be given on the receiver cum commissioner of partition to immediately hand over plot a to the defendant no.3 group; (d) direction for police .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2012 (HC)

Paritosh Kumar Dey and Others Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and Others

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-14-2012

subhro kamal mukherjee, j. this is an application under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging inaction on the part of the tehsildar, rangat, middle andaman, in refusing to mutate the names of the petitioners in relation to the disputed properties. the properties, admittedly, belonged to sushanto kumar dey. he purportedly executed a will, which was registered on december 3, 2004, allegedly bequeathing his estate in favour of his three sons. the said sushanto kumar dey died on april, 20, 2005 leaving behind him his six daughters and three sons. his wife is, already, dead. it seems that disputes have developed between the daughters and the sons of the deceased. the daughters applied for mutation of their names in respect of the disputed property. subsequently, the sons, also, applied for mutation of their names, excluding the names of their sisters, in respect of the selfsame properties on the basis of the said registered will. the tehsildar considered the said applications and by his order dated november 01, 2011 declined to mutate the names of the heirs and legal representatives in relation to the disputed properties till a competent court of law decides the validity of the purported will. being aggrieved, the sons have come up with this writ petition. mr. bimal kumar das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners strenuously argues that it is clear from the will that the testator bequeathed his properties in favour of his three sons excluding his daughters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2012 (HC)

Kolay Properties (P) Ltd and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-18-2012

pranab kumar chattopadhyay, j. both the writ petitions have been filed assailing the common judgment and order dated 30th march, 2011 passed by the west bengal land reforms and tenancy tribunal in o.a. no. 2576 and 2577 of 2009. in these writ petitions several important issues relating to the concept of thika tenancy have been raised for consideration and adjudication by this court. we have heard the writ petitions analogously since both the writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. from the records, we find that one biswanath pal was the owner of 14 cottahs of land in respect of the premises in question. out of the aforesaid 14 cottahs, 5 cottahs of land on the eastern portion of the premises in question was in occupation of k. c. ghosh and company. the balance 9 cottahs of land on the western portion of the said premises was let out to one sripada mitra in the year 1937. the said k. c. ghosh and company left the aforesaid 5 cottahs of land on the eastern portion of the premises in question which was thereafter developed by the successor of biswanath pal namely, ambar nath pal. the said owner namely, ambar nath pal sold the remaining portion of the premises in question measuring about 8 cottahs 12 chittaks 20 square feet to the petitioner kolay properties (p) ltd. by executing deed of conveyance. in the year 1971, sripada mitra died and thereafter a partition suit was filed being title suit no. 20 of 1972. the aforesaid partition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2012 (HC)

Ps Group Reality Ltd. Another Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation an ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-19-2012

this writ application is filed by the petitioners assailing the annual valuation of premises no.48 matheswartala road, police station tangra, kolkata- 700046 for the period from 2/2008-09. the backdrop of the case is as follows:- the petitioners nos. 1 to 8 are companies registered under the companies act, 1956 having their respective registered offices at the addresses given in the cause title of this writ application. the petitioner no.9 is the authorized signatory of the petitioner nos. 1 to 8. the petitioner nos. 1 to 8 purchased premises no.48 matheswartala road. p.s. tangra, kolkata- 700046(hereinafter referred to as the said premises), being land with structures for consideration of res.15,06,00,000/- and 1,73,38,358/- by registered deed of conveyance dated july 23, 2008. the petitioners submitted an application dated september 23, 2008 before the competent authority of the respondent no.1 for mutation of the names of the petitioners nos. 1 to 8 in the assessment book of the respondent no.1. by a communication dated september 24, 2008 the respondent no.1 informed the petitioner nos. 1 to 8 that the annual valuation for the said premises was proposed as follows: 3/1984-85 rs.5,56,320/- 3/1990-91 rs.6,68,300/- 3/1996-97 rs.8,02,680/- 3/2002-03 rs.9,62,540/- 2/2008-09 rs.1,09,73,900/- the petitioner nos. 1 to 8 were further informed by the above communication to meet the respondent no.4 within seven days from the date of receipt of the above letter with a declaration on a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2012 (HC)

Kalpana Rani Dutta Vs. Concorde Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-20-2012

1. the petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction instituted by her against the opposite parties. she claims to be the owner of the suit property described in the schedule appended to the plaint, reading as under: all that piece and parcel of land being 16 cottahs, 6 chittaks, 36 sq.ft. more or less being a portion of 1.86 satak in mouza kasba j.l. no. 13, dag no. 4175, khatian no. 1630, within kolkata municipal corporation ward no. 107, premises no. 30, rajdanga nabapally under p.s. kasba, kolkata- 107, district- 24 parganas (s) butted and bounded as follows: on the north : r.s. dag no. 4186, on the south : road, on the east: kmc road, on the west r.s. dag no. 4166 (p). the suit property shall hereafter be referred to as property a. 2. the plaint reveals how the petitioner has set up right, title and interest in respect of property a. it is alleged that despite she being the owner thereof, the opposite party no.1 wrongfully obtained a building plan, duly sanctioned by the kolkata municipal corporation (hereafter the corporation) for raising construction covering a portion of property a and that she is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for. the main prayer in the suit reads as follows: permanent injunction-restraining the defendant no. 1, its men and agents from entering the suit property and from disturbing and/or interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possess on of the plaintiff in the suit property and/or from .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2012 (HC)

Asit Kumar Saha Vs. Arnab Roy

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-11-2012

order sheet cc no.201 of 201.wp no.1761 of 200.in the high court at calcutta special jurisdiction(contempt) original side asit kumar saha versus arnab roy before: the hon'ble justice tapan kumar dutt date :11. h may, 2012. mr.r.ghosh, adv.appears.mr.s.k.dey, adv.appears.the court : this court, by an order dated 10.11.2008, had disposed of a writ petition by setting aside certain bills shown as annexure p-17 series to the writ petition (wp no.1761 of 2005) and by directing the respondent municipal authorities to raise bills on account of rates and taxes in respect of the purchased property of the writ petitioner in the name of the said writ petitioner indicating the rates and taxes payable by the writ petitioner in respect of the said purchased property only for the period in question and the writ petitioner was directed to pay such bill in accordance with law. it further appears that in the said order dated 10.11.2008 it was recorded that the learned advocate for the respondent municipal authorities submitted that if the writ petitioner visits the office of the respondent municipal authorities, then in that event a copy of the mutation certificate shall be handed over to the writ petitioner. the present contempt application has been filed by the said writ petitioner alleging that the alleged contemner/opposite parties have not complied with the said order dated 10.11.2008. the learned advocates for the respective parties have stated before this court that there is no dispute .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 2012 (HC)

Sajeda Khatoon Vs. Shah Ata HossaIn and Others

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-11-2012

soumen sen, j.:- the order allowing a petition filed under order 2 rule 2 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure filed after conclusion of evidence and before argument was allowed by the learned presiding officer, wakf tribunal, west bengal in suit no.9 of 2009 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. the principal issue raised in this revisional application is the jurisdiction of the wakf tribunal to allow an application under order 2 rule 2 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure after conclusion of evidence and before argument. in order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, the following provisions of the code of civil procedure and the wakf act, 1995 are required to be taken into consideration:- i) order 2 rule 2,c.p.c. 2. suit to include the whole claim.- (1) every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court. (2) relinquishment of part of claim. where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) omission to sue for one of several reliefs. a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 2012 (HC)

Guruprosad Chakraborty and Another Vs. Umarani Kundu Chowdhury and Oth ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-15-2012

prasenjit mandal, j. this application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.76 dated january 16, 2009 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), sealdah in title suit no.150 of 2000 thereby allowing the defendant no.4 to repair the schedule b property as described in the application at his own cost without changing the nature and character of the property. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. the plaintiffs / petitioners herein instituted a suit being title suit no.150 of 2000 against the defendants / opposite parties for declaration that a certain deed of declaration executed by defendant no.2 in 1999 is void, invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs, for further declaration that the deed of conveyance executed by the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendant no.4 executed in the year 1999 is void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs have contended in the plaint that they purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale in 1997 from the vendors of the defendant no.s 1, 2 and 3 and that after purchase they took necessary steps for mutation and other steps. a dispute cropped up over the right, title and interest on the suit property. in the mean time, the defendant no.4 has prayed for repair of the suit premises as indicated above. that application was allowed by the impugned order. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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