Kolkata Court August 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashoke Goenka and anr. Vs. Sri Alapan Bandyopadhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
The Court : This application for contempt was filed by the petitioners by alleging non-compliance of the direction passed by this Court in the order dated December 24, 2008 in W.P. No.1358 of 2008. By the said order, the municipal authority was directed to sanction the building plan submitted by the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the said order by imposing any suitable restriction, if at all found necessary, as per rule 16(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 subject, however, to compliance of certain recommendations, of the Municipal Building Committee as mentioned in the said order, by the petitioners. Since the building plan submitted by the petitioners was not sanctioned by the municipal authority in terms of the direction passed by this Court in the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed the instant application for contempt. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemners, submits in his usua...
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Calcutta Gujarati Educa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the letter of intimation dated 29th June, 2009 issued by the Assessment-Collection Department of Kolkata Municipal Corporation referring a dues of Rs.83,974/- being the dues for arrear property tax for 2nd quarter of 1986, a writ application was moved registered as W. P. No.742 of 2009. The Learned Trial Judge passed a judgment and order on 12th February, 2010 by allowing the writ application partly directing that only an amount of Rs.4,199/- is payable together with interest and penalty under the law. The writ petitioners have preferred an appeal assailing the said judgment and order dated 12th February, 2010, which has been registered as A.P.O. No.131 of 2010. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has also preferred an appeal, which has been registered as A.P.O. No.313 of 2010. The impugned order of the Learned Trial Judge reads such: The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is a letter of intimatio...
Anil Baran Mahajan Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
The Court :- In this writ application the petitioner, an existing operator has sought orders restraining the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, or the Regional Transport Authority, 24 Parganas from issuing permits in the route from Barasat to Dakshin Barasat via Jessore Road; E.M. Bye Pass, Garia, Sonarpur and Baruipur to any private operators. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is a Notification No. 1010-WT/3M-154/2004 dated 11.02.2005 whereby a scheme has been formulated under Chapter-VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in favour of the State Transport Undertakings as specified in the said notification namely Calcutta State Transport Corporation, the South Bengal State Transport Corporation, the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, the West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd., and the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid notification no permit can be granted on the routes co...
Mainak Constructions and Builders Pvt Ltd. Vs. Nortel Networks (India) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
The Court : The order dated 21st April, 2010, is mentioned. By that order the application was disposed of by appointing an Arbitrator at a consolidated remuneration of Rs.50,000/-. The time to make and publish the Award was four months from the date of service of the order. That order is mentioned for the purpose of its proper implementation. The time to make and publish the Award is expiring but the reference has not been completed. It is true that there is no time prescribed by the Act to make and publish the Award. But it is equally true that when it is made known to the parties by an order of the Court that the arbitral reference has to be completed within four months, due weight has to be given to that mandate. I appreciate the submission made by the parties jointly that the issues have become very contentious and the records are voluminous. That is why, it was not possible to complete the reference within four months. For those reasons, although the parties consent that the time ...
Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bhandari Consultancy and Finance ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
The Court: This application appeared in the list on 28th of July, 2010. Learned Counsel for the Central Government sought adjournment to file an affidavit. Today it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no copy of the affidavit has been served upon her. None appears for the Central Government. It is presumed that they have no objection to sanction of the scheme. Accordingly, I allow this application by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) to (j) of the petition. In the event the petitioners supply a legible computerized print out of the scheme and the schedule of assets in acceptable form to the department, the department will append such computerized print out, upon verification, to the certified copy of the order without insisting on a handwritten copy thereof. The petitioner is to pay a consolidated cost of 200 GMs. to the Central Government. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Sankar Lal Sadhukhan Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
In this writ application the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order, bearing memo. no.174/L&L;/DR dated 5th August, 2010, issued by the Director of Rationing, West Bengal, suspending temporarily the license of the petitioner, the owner of a Fair Price Shop in the Dum Dum area in exercise of power under paragraph 26 of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003. The grounds on which the order of suspension has been issued, have been enumerated in the impugned order. Some of the grounds and in particular, the seventh ground of major discrepancies in stock as entered in the stock register and the stock displayed on the stock board, are undoubtedly serious charges. The charges have, however, been denied. The Director of Rationing was required under paragraph 26 of the 2003 Order to form the opinion that immediate suspension of the Fair Price Shop was in the interest of the general public. The relevant part of the order of suspension impugned...
The Union of India and anr. Vs. Sri Tapan Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
The Court :- This application is admitted by condoning delay, as in my opinion sufficient cause has been shown. It appears that claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded in their entirety to the respondent on the basis of admission made by the railways. Such portion of the award has not even been challenged in this application. Therefore, I give liberty to the award-holder/respondent to proceed with execution in respect of the above portion of the award, if the railways do not pay the said awarded sum, (without interest) within one month from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner may proceed with the application, subject to the above condition. List this application after the long vacation. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....
Smt.Sasawati Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
The Court : The petitioner applied for permit on route No.71. The application was considered and a letter being Memo No.RTA/236(Con) dated 28.7.2010 was issued to the petitioner offering the petitioner permit subject to compliance with the requisite conditions. In terms of the aforesaid offer letter, the petitioner was required to acquire a vehicle which was either Bharat Stage-III or Bharat Stage-IV. Obtaining finance from HDFC Bank, the petitioner has purchased a Bharat Stage-III vehicle. The vehicle has been registered temporarily. However, the vehicle has not been granted permanent registration on the ground that the vehicle is not Bharat Stage-IV Compliant. The action of the respondent authorities in not registering the vehicle permanently on the ground of the vehicle not being a Bharat Stage-IV vehicle is legally unsustainable. As per the letter of offer the petitioner was required to procure a vehicle which was either Bharat Stage-III or Bharat Stage-IV Compliant. If the petitio...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mune Gowda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : This is a Section 9 application. It is founded on a hire purchase agreement dated 22nd September, 2007, between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, whose value is Rs.38,70,000/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 23rd November, 2009. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on 23rd November, 2009, was Rs.36,17,663/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. Affidavit of service has been filed in Court. It is submitted that the respondents have been served, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers (a) and (f) of the petition. I appoint Mr. Ashok Nandy, Advocate, Bar Association Room No.2, as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file a report by the returnable date. The Receiver will be entitled to ap...
Lmj International Ltd. Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in the Ve ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court: The survey report filed by the Receiver in a sealed cover is opened in Court and taken on record. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the owners that at present he has no instruction. So, I direct the Receiver to circulate a copy of this report to the appearing parties. The Receiver will also take steps to issue necessary advertisements in the print media or if he thinks necessary in the print media as well as in the electronic media for sale of this vessel by fixing a reserve price on the basis of the said report. Offers may be received and processed by the Receiver but he will not enter into a concluded contract for sale, for the time being. List this application once again after four weeks for further orders. Leave is given to the Receiver to take a copy of the original report under the supervision of the officers of the Court. All costs and charges of the Receiver will be borne by the petitioner. Receiver and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »