Kolkata Court March 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.
Ashoka Ghose and ors. Vs. Debsons Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1.The plaintiffs interlocutory application and a contempt petition are so inescapably connected that they have been taken up together; but separate orders are made. The suit as originally brought to this Court was for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and alleged damage to the property. The plaint has long been amended to incorporate a further ground on account of alleged sub-letting. The plaintiffs principal grievance in their latest interlocutory application is of the defendant attempting to change the nature and character of the tenanted premises.2. The immediate purpose of the application is indicated in the last fifteen or so paragraphs of the petition. Though a part of the plaintiffs petition suggests construction work of a permanent nature being carried out at the demised premises by the defendant without notice to the plaintiffs, the application was meant to be somewhat of a shot in the dark angling for bigger things. The contempt petition has been subsequen...
Usha MartIn Ventures Limited and ors. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. In view of the urgency pleaded by Mr. Poddar, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, pointing out that 15 th March, 2011 was the date for showing cause why a criminal prosecution should not be initiated against the petitioner when against the imposition of penalty an appeal is pending and it is 2 also in the list of hearing as item no.70, we have decided to take up the matter although the same is not appearing in the list. 2. Let affidavit-in-opposition be given within two weeks. Reply, if any, be given within a week thereafter. Let this application be heard along with the appeal, which is in the list, after three weeks. 3. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of ad interim order restraining the respondents from initiating any criminal proceeding under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income Tax Act in respect of the selfsame penalty, which is the subject matter of the pending appeal, till the disposal o...
Swapan Kumar PatrA. Vs. Hirak Nath Sount and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order dated February 20, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.98 of 2008 thereby settting aside the order dated July 31, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2006. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit properties, as described in the schedule of the plaint against the opposite parties. The opposite parties herein have entered appearance in the suit and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The defendants have contended that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, by an order dated July 31, 2008, he has held that the suit is maintainable. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. 3. Appeal No.98 of...
Swapan Kumar PatrA. Vs. Hirak Nath Sount and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.30 dated December 8, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking for police help. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.92 of 2006 against the opposite parties for declaration and injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur. In that suit, the defendants are contesting by filing a written statement. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and he moved for ad interim order. That prayer for ad interim order restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit properties had been granted. Thereafter, the application for ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, KolkatA. Vs. Contai Cooperatiave Bank Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. We, thus, condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. This appeal will be heard on the following substantial question of law. Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in treating the income from investment of non-statutory surplus fund as business income and allowing deduction there to under section 90P(2)(a)( i ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1622 of 2010 (M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnataka). 4. Let notice of this appeal be served by the Department on the respondent in usual course. Let requisite numbers of informal paper book containing all relevant papers used before ...
Ai Champdany Industries Limited. Vs. Blancatex A. G. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Two appeals and two cross appeals were heard by me. They were against the order dated 17th May, 2010 passed by the Company Law Board, Kolkata Bench. The order was passed in each of the two applications for disclosure of information and documents made by the applicants Aldgate International SA and Blancatex AG and others before the Board in aid of the proceedings filed by them under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. In fact there was one main proceedings before the Company Law Board, filed by each of the above companies, being C.P. 1 (Kol) 2010 C.P.(2) (Kol) 2010 respectively. Two appeals were filed by these applicants and two by the first respondent company in these proceedings, A.I. Champdany Industries Limited, which were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. At this stage I may note that this disclosure of documents was stated by the applicants to be necessary inter alia for filing their reply to the main company proceedings. 2. There is some co...
Dhansagar Vyapaar Private Limited and ors. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. A meeting of the Shareholders of DHANSAGAR VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Calcutta- 700001 on the 11th day of April, 2011 at 2.00 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the Scheme of Amalgamation proposed of DHANSAGAR VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED and BANSIDHAR TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Transferor Companies) with FULFIL TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company). 2. A meeting of the Shareholders of BANSIDHAR TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Calcutta-700001 on the 11th day of April, 2011 at 2.15 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the Scheme of Amalgamation. 3. A meeting of the Shareholders of FULFIL TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st F...
Ajr Fiscal Private Limited and anr. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. A meeting of the Equity Shareholders of AJR FISCAL PRIVATE LIMITED, being the applicant no.1 above named shall be convened and held at 6, Old Post Office Street, Room no.7, North Basement, Kolkata 700 001, on Friday, the 29th day of April, 2011 at 4:15 p.m. for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant no.1 with the Applicant no.2 above named. 2. A meeting of the Equity Shareholders of RAJGARHIA LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, being the applicant no.2 above named shall be convened and held at 6, Old Post Office Street, Room no.7, North Basement, Kolkata 700 001, on Friday, the 29th day of April, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant no.1 with the Applicant no.2 above named. Since all the shareholders of the applicant companies above named have alr...
Kalpena Industries Limited and ors. Vs. Respondent.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. A separate meeting of the holders of the Equity Shares in Bavaria Poly Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company) shall be convened and held at Gyan Manch at no.11, Pretoria Street, Kolkata- 700 071 on Tuesday the 26th day of April 2011 at 10=00 A.M. for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, a Scheme of Arrangement between the applicant companies and their respective equity shareholders for the purpose of amalgamation of the Transferor Company with Kalpena Industries Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company). The said Scheme being hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of Amalgamation. 2. A separate meeting of the holders of Equity Shares in the Transferor Company shall be convened and held at Gyan Manch at no.11, Pretoria Street, Kolkata-700 071 on Tuesday the 26th day of April 2011 at 10=30 A.M. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving with or without modification the said ...
Kishwar Jahan and Another. Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. This is an application challenging the order dated 31st October, 2008 whereby sanction for prosecution has been granted in respect of the respondent no.4, 5 and 6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that upon completion of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a final report was submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis thereof proceedings were initiated in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and on 22nd Setember, 2008, the Magistrate passed an order that no sanction was required. Inspite thereof by order dated 31st October, 2008 sanction has been granted under Section 120B of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In order to protect the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 no sanction has been granted under Section 306 of the IPC. In fact no sanction was needed as the acts of the private respondents is not in the course of their respective duty. There is no reason for non-inclusion of Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »