Kolkata Court December 2011 Judgments
Shree Shree Isswar Benode Behary Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice J. N. Patel, Chief JusticeANDThe Hon'ble Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti W. P. No. 921 of 2011 Shree Shree Isswar Benode Behary and Sree Sree Binodeshwar Mahadeva and; Anr. Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation and; Ors. For the petitioner : Ms. Amritaa Pandey, Advocate Ms. Anamika Pandey, AdvocateFor respondent no. 13 : Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Advocate For respondent nos. 9 and 10 : Md. Nizamuddin, Advocate For the Pollution Control : Mr. N. C. Behani, Advocate BoardFor the Kolkata Municipal : Mr. Debangshu Mondal, Advocate CorporationHeard on : 09.12.2011.Judgement on : 23.12.2011 2 Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.: This writ petition is directed against an alleged wrongful action or inaction by the respondents authorities in not passing necessary orders against the private respondent, i.e., respondent no. 13 and thereby allegedly abetting conversion of a residential building into a factory ...
Tag this Judgment!In the High Court at Calcutta Vs. K. Udyog Limited Versus Niaz Ahmed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
GA No. 1521 of 2006 CS No. 113 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction V. K. UDYOG LIMITED Versus NIAZ AHMED and; ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 22nd December, 2011. Mr.Pradip Kr.Ghose, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Debdutta Sen, Mr. D. Das for the petitioner. Mr.S. Chowdhury, Mr.Rupak Ghosh, Mr.M.A.Jabbar, Mr.N.Khanjoy for respondent no.2. The Court : In a suit for a money decree this application has been filed for interim reliefs. The case of the petitioner is that goods were exported to the respondent no.1 and an irrevocable letter of credit was issued by the respondent no.2 who is the banker of the respondent no.1 and issuing banker of the letter of credit. Although the bills of lading were despatched and goods received, no payment has been made by the respondents to the petitioner. On 17th May, 2006 an order was passed in terms of prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion and was restricted to the banks mentioned in paragraph 94 of the petition. On...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Deep Sikha and Co
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
GA No. 3524 of 1999 AC No. 380 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Versus DEEP SIKHA and; CO. BEFORE:The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEEDate : 22nd December, 2011. Mr. S. S. Bose, Adv. appears The Court : The primary challenge to the award is on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked authority in taking up the reference. The present challenge is under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent is not represented even at the second call. The petitioner has issued several notices to the respondent but it appears that the respondent firm may not be existence and it does not carry on any business at 2, Church Lane. The petitioner will retain the notices issued to the respondent for future reference. On the merits of the award, the petitioner says that the arbitrator failed to indicate any reasons as to why the petitioner's counter-claim was dismissed. The petitioner also assails the award in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Banik Vs. Mahabir Prosad Todi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1 APO No. 304 of 2010 CS NO.527 OF 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NARAYAN BANIK Versus MAHABIR PROSAD TODI For appellant : Mr. J. Banerjee, Mr. S. Dutta, advocates. For respondent : Mr. S. Chowdhury, Ms. S. Biswas, advocates. BEFORE: The Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 22nd December, 2011. The Court : On a money suit being filed by the respondent herein for a decree of Rs.33,10,044.76 and other reliefs a learned single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant thereto, i.e. the appellant herein, to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.33,10,000/- only with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from 21st December, 2000, being the date of institution of the suit till the date of the judgment. This suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant did not appear. The case of the defendant was that it could ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Jalan Vs. Banwarilal Jalan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
1 G.A. No. 1310 of 2011 A.P.O.T. No. 657 of 2010 A.O.R.C. No.1 of 2010 A.O.R.C. No.2 of 2010 In the High Court at Calcutta In Appeal From Its Original Civil Jurisdiction Original SidePresent : The Hon'ble Justice J.N. Patel, Chief Justice And The Hon'ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti Pramod Kumar Jalan Versus Banwarilal JalanFor the Applicant : Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Jayjit Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Sayentan Basu, Advocate Mr. Ashish Chowdhury, AdvocateFor the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Sarkar, Advocate Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ajoy Chowdhury, AdvocateHeard on : 23.11.2011Order on : 22.12.2011 The petitioner is the original respondent who has filed this application forreview of the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the DivisionBench of this Court in G.A. No.3725 of 2010, A.P.O.T. No. 657 of 2010, A.O.R.C. 2No.1 of 2010 and A.O.R.C. No.2 of 2010 (Banwarilal Jalan vs. Pramod KumarJalan). The respondent has raised a preliminary issue as to the maintaina...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Purbanchal Ex-servicemen Vs. Coal India Limited and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-2011
AP No. 829 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. PURBANCHAL EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION (EASTERN REGION) Versus COAL INDIA LIMITED and; ORS. Appearance Mr. Manas Dasgupta, Advocate Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. S.S. Bose, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 22nd December, 2011. The Court : This is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents on June 28, 1991 under which the petitioner was required to supply security personnel to the respondents' mines in the Rajmahal area. By a letter dated December 11, 1992, the respondents informed the petitioner that "the services of security heads of your organization are not required w.e.f. 11.12.92." The letter, however, said that the respondents would pay for the security guards who had been employed till the date of the issuance of the letter. Though the petition s...
Tag this Judgment!Visa Steel Ltd Vs. Durgapur Projects Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
AP No. 1056 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction VISA STEEL LTD. Versus DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 21st December, 2011. Appearance: Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Mitra,. Adv. Mr. D. N. Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Roopa Mitra, Adv. Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Advocate General Mr. Bhaskar Mitra, Adv. The Court : Courts and tribunals in this country - and Judges and officers manning them - do not have omnibus authority to right any perceived wrong. The contours of their authority are defined either by the statute under which they operate or the business that is allocated. The present challenge is fashioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the petitioner insists that the order dated November 1, 2011 passed by the arbitrator is an arbitral award within the definition of Section 2(2) of the Act of 1996. At any rate, 2 the petitioner contends that it is an interim award an...
Tag this Judgment!Noble Enclave and Towers Private Vs. Unknown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
1 CP No. 500 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: NOBLE ENCLAVE AND TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ... Petitioners For the Petitioners: Mr S.N. Mookerjee, Sr Adv., Mr Debangshu Basak, Adv. For the Union of India: Ms Saswati Ghosh, Adv.Hearing concluded on: December 13, 2011.BEFOREThe Hon'ble JusticeSANJIB BANERJEEDate: December 20, 2011. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : - The nature of the objections raised by the Central Government to the sanction of the proposed scheme of amalgamation has inspired the court to revisit a matter that apparently stands concluded by virtue of a judgment of a Division Bench of this court. The Central Government says that two of the clauses of the proposed scheme of amalgamation, Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of Part III, should not be approved even if the scheme is otherwise sanctioned. The two relevant clauses provide as follows: "4.2 The resolutions, including resolutions passed under Section 293(1)(d) of the Act, if any, of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Goodricke Group Ltd. and ors Vs. Unknown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
CP No.274 of 2011 CA No. 952 of 2010 CP No. 556 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: GOODRICKE GROUP LTD. and; ORS. -AND- THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :December 19, 2011. Appearance: Mr. S. N. Mookerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Adv. Mr. D. N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Orijit Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Indranil Karfa, Adv. Mr. P. S. Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Bhasya, Adv. Mr. Ashis Kr. Roy, Adv. The Court: In C.P No.274 of 2011 the petitioners, all officers of Goodricke Group Limited, have applied under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of three several notices issued by the Registrar of Companies. Of the three, the Registrar has concentrated primarily on the one notice that alleges violation of the provisions of 295(1)(e) of the Companies Act in respect of transactions between the company and one Stewart Holl India Limited (SHIL). 2 The company is a listed company and its prim...
Tag this Judgment!National Building Construction Vs. Indiv India Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1 AP No. 250 of 2005 GA No. 3760 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED -Versus- INDIV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED For the Petitioner: Mr S.N. Mookerjee, Sr Adv., Mr A.K. Routh, Adv., Mr Nemani Srinivas, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr Siddhartha Mitra, Sr Adv., Ms Mousumi Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr U.S. Menon, Adv.Hearing concluded on: December 14, 2011.BEFOREThe Hon'ble JusticeSANJIB BANERJEEDate: December 19, 2011. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : - An award rendered in an arbitral reference pertaining to a works contract is assailed in the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The primary ground of challenge is that the award does not give any or adequate reasons in support of the various heads under which the respondent-claimant was found to be entitled. The petitioner also claims that crucial matters that were urged before the arbitrator and noticed by the 2arbitrator in c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »