Kolkata Court November 2011 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.
Orbit Towers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Unknown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
CP No. 128 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of : ORBIT TOWERS PVT. LTD. And SIMPLEX PROJECTS LTD. Appearance Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Partha Mukherjee, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 15th November, 2011. The Court : Both the basis of the claim and the defence are as dishonest as they come, but on a comparative assessment of the level of dishonesty, the Company Court may err - if it must - on the side of the company in the winding-up jurisdiction. The short claim of the petitioner is that it made an inter-corporate deposit of an amount of Rs.20 lakh with the company. The petitioner has relied on the document under which it made the payment. The letter is dated November 17, 2009 and appears to have been received by the company with the company's rubber-stamp and the signature of an office-bearer thereof. The petitioner's letter referred to only "t...
L and T Finance Ltd Vs. Deepak Coal Depot and Deepak Stone
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
AP No. 616 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction L and; T FINANCE LTD. Versus DEEPAK COAL DEPOT and; DEEPAK STONE CRUSHER and; ANR. BEFORE:The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 14th November, 2011. Mr. Priyankar Saha, Adv. appears The Court : The respondents are not represented despite service. The Receiver files a report with a copy made over to the petitioner. The Receiver has made an inventory of the asset that forms the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties. The Receiver remains in symbolic possession of such asset. The petitioner says that the reference is pending. According to the petitioner, the tenure of the agreement has run out but no payment has been tendered by the respondents since the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed. 2 The Receiver will continue to remain in symbolic possession of the asset. The petitioner will be at liberty to apply for the receiver to take p...
Ashok Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
AP No. 678 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Ashok Kumar Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal Before:The Hon'ble Justice Sanjib BanerjeeDate: 3rd November 2011 Appearance: Mr. Mainak Bose, Advocate Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Advocate The essential facts are not in dispute. Disputes and differences have admittedly arisen between the parties and are covered by the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between them. In terms of the arbitration agreement, the petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator by a letter dated October 11, 2010 which was received by the appointing authority on the same day. The present request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was carried to this Court on November 22, 2010. The appointing authority, a chief engineer of the relevant department, annointed himself as the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement on November 24, 2010. A copy of the present petit...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. I. T. C. Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT 293 OF 2011 G.A.3144 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-IX,KOL. VERSUS I. T. C. LTDFor the Appellant : Md. Nizamuddin, Advocate For the Respondent :BEFOREHON'BLE JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA ANDHON'BLE JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTINovember 3, 2011 THE COURT : This appeal will be heard on the following substantial question of law :- 1) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the security deposits and other deposits amounting to Rs.3,93,303/- should be treated as revenue in nature on the ground of their irrecoverability by the assessee 2) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80 1A of the Income-tax Act 1961 on 100% of the profit of the power undertaking at Bhadrachalam where the said undertaking commenced operation in the financial year 1997-98. 3) Whether th...
Pancham Rao Khadipure and ors Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDEPresent:THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE W.P.164 of 2009 G.A.1951 of 2009 G.A. 2295 of 2009 With W.P. 386 of 2009 G.A. 1952 of 2009 G.A.2296 of 2009 W.P. 1217 of 2009 W.P. 5783(W) of 2009 CAN. 6360 of 2009 Pancham Rao Khadipure and; Ors. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and; Ors. Kumar Narendra and; Ors. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and; Ors. Prashant Shrivastava and; Anr. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and; Ors. Sk. Khaja Rahamathulla and; Ors. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and; Ors.Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Soumya Majumder Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee Mr. Ashmita GhoshAdvocates for Respondentsand; Added Parties: Mr. P. K. Mallick Mr. Alok Banerjee Mr. Pradyot Kr. Das Mr. Kishore Datta 2 Mr. Sudhangshu SilJudgment On: 02.11.2011ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:-1. The dispute in these four writ petitions relates to fixation of seniority list inthe Common Coal cadre of Coal India Limited, which it appears is known as theGlobal Seniorit...
Unknown Vs. NavIn Shah and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Side G.A. No. 2119 of 2006 C.S. No. 252 of 2002 SARITA BATURA .........Petitioner - VERSUS - NAVIN SHAH and; ANR. .........Respondents G.A. No. 2091 of 2006 C.S. No. 253 of 2002 SARITA BATURA .........Petitioner - VERSUS - DOLPHIN EDI-OIL PRIVATE LIMITED and; ANR. .........RespondentsFor the petitioner : Mr. Pratik Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Adv.For the Respondents : Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Lall, Adv.Heard on : 21.07.2011, 28.07.2011, 10.08.2011 and; 17.08.2011Judgment on: 2nd November, 2011I.P. MUKERJI, J.G.A. No. 2119 of 2006With 2C.S. No. 252 of 2002First I will deal with the Chapter XIIIA application taken out by the plaintiff, being G.A. No. 2119 of 2006 connected with C.S. No. 252 of 2002.This suit has quite a long history. It is of the year 2002. It was originally instituted as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first defendant applied to defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›