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.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. the Indian Craft Villag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. These two appeals were heard analogously as these are directed against the selfsame order dated 27th September, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ-application by directing the appellants before us to perform their part of the approved terms of agreement entered into amongst the parties during the pendency of the writ-application within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order with further stipulation that in default, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) should restore possession to the writ-petitioners of the leasehold land by removing the construction and/or the structure constructed thereon and thereafter, not to disturb the possession of the writ-petitioners in respect of leasehold property comprising of 18.11 acres of land at the said premises without due process of law. 2. It was further ordered that in the event the KMC or any other person claiming any interest through it, including the West Bengal Tr...
Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated 27th June, 2002 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Kolkata, in I.T.A. No. 2600(Cal) of 1997 relating to the Assessment Year 1990-91 thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant and affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upholding the disallowance of loss on account of purchase and resale of UTI units. The Tribunal, however, made it clear that the allowance of loss should be restricted to the extent of dividend brought to tax by the Assessing Officer and consequently, to that extent, the appeal was allowed. 2. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal: At the time of admission of this appeal, a Division Bench of this Court formulated the following questions of law: This appeal will be heard on the substantial question of law as to whether the Learned Tribunal was justifie...
Dinesh Viniyog Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of a judgment-debtor and is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge allowed an application for execution of a foreign award in terms of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure after overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor that as the decree did not mention any provision of interest, the execution application for realization of interest was not maintainable. 2. Being dissatisfied, the judgment-debtor has come up with the present appeal: The following facts are not in dispute: a) The decree-holder filed an execution application under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the order dated 12th March, 1998 passed by the Honble Justice Ferris of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, United Kingdom in Case No. 009020 of 1990 against the appellant. b) The said application was ...
Parimal Sarkar Vs. Union of India Service Through the Secretary Minist ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
LT GEN K P D Samanta, Member (Administrative): 1. The petitioner, Parimal Sarkar was enrolled in the Army, Army Medical Corps (in short the AMC) as a Sepoy in December, 1993 and was discharged on medical grounds on 26th July, 1995 (Annexure P/1 of the Writ Petition). Being aggrieved with the conditions for which he was discharged and not paid any disability pension, the petitioner filed a Writ Application before the Calcutta High Court (No. W P 3907 (W)/2002). The said Writ Petition was admitted and heard for the first time at Calcutta High Court on 3rd April, 2002 and subsequently transferred to this Tribunal on 18th May, 2010 by a judicial order from Calcutta High Court and re-numbered as TA 94/2010 after being admitted on 5th August, 2010 at this Tribunal. The transfer application was initially dismissed for default since none was present for the petitioner despite repeated calls on 13th September, 2010. It was later restored vide our decision dated 24th September, 2010 in response ...
Manas Kundu. Vs. Sudarshan Pal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This application is that the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.124 dated August 7, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.4 of 2008 arising out of the Title Suit No.261 of 2000, thereby allowing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with costs of Rs.800/-. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.261 of 2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Howrah against the opposite party for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, as described in the schedule of the plaint, on the ground of reasonable requirement, default, etc. and for mesne profits. In that suit, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement as well an application under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. While disposing of the said application under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West B...
Makhanlal Satnaliwala Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountants of In ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 25, 2011 is aggrieved by an order of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India dated February 3, 2011 (at p.95) ordering as follows: 10. Keeping in view all the circumstances, as aforesaid, and material on record, the Board is of the view that the punishment to be awarded to the Respondent should be removal of his name from the Register of member up to the period of three months and in order to meet the ends of justice, the Respondent is also imposed upon a fine of Rs. 1 lakh which he needs to deposit within a period of one and half months. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under s.21A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The order has been passed by the Board of Discipline under sub-s.(3) of s.21A read with r.15(1) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. 3. As a member of the Institute aggrieved by ...
Rajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Director of Suppl ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The Court :- The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 1, 2010 intended to participate in a tender process in connection with which the tender documents at pp.22-34 were supplied by the respondents. 2. On the first page of the tender documents the following was written: Time & Date of Receipt of Tender By 02:30 PM On 12-10-2010 Time & Date of Opening of Tender At 03:00 PM On 12-10-2010 3. On the tenth page of the tender documents (under the heading Other Important Information) the following was written: 1. Manual tendering: - You are requested to submit your complete tender documents THROUGH TENDER BOX (Located at DS&D;,6 Esplanade East, Kolkata-69) in sealed cover (in duplicate) super scribing with the Tender Enquiry No.Gr.Sheet-C/C-2/RC-RH020000/1011 or through Speed Post/Regd. Dak to be addressed to Tender Receipt Cell by 1.30 PM, to be opened on 12.10.2010 at 03.00 PM of quoting bidders. 4. It has been stated in the opposition that 14 (fourteen) tenderers dropped t...
Sajal Chatterjee Vs. Kanailal Mondal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.97 dated January 31, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.75 of 1993 thereby rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being a Title Suit No.75 of 1993 for eviction against the defendant before the learned Munsif, Second Court, Hooghly in 1993. The defendant entered appearance and he filed a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. Thereafter, the said suit was at the stage of recording evidence. The plaintiff was examined-in-chief and at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff a hand note dated March 17, 1987 purported to have been written and signed by the plaintiff was shown to him and the plaintiff denied his handwriting and signature thereon. For that reason, that document was marked X for identification....
M. Alam at Mahfooz Alam Vs. Ms. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the decreeholder and is directed against the order no.42 dated September 22, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansal in Title Execution Case No.4 of 2005 thereby staying the execution proceeding.2. The decreeholder/petitioner herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.178 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansal against the defendants/opposite parties herein for defamation and other reliefs. The defendants/opposite parties herein did not contest the said suit at all and as such, the said suit was decreed ex parte on April 7, 2005 holding that the plaintiff was to get a decree for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- against the defendants. The defendants were also directed to pay the said amount within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 11% per annum from that date till realisation. The decree remained unsatisfied and for that reason, the plaintiff/p...
Bikash Ghosh and anr. Vs. Board of Councillors of Barrackpore Municipa ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Whether or not the order dated December 27, 2010 issued by the Chairman, Barrackpore Municipality (hereafter the Municipality) holding that the reply of the petitioners (to the notice dated December 8, 2010 calling upon them to show cause why action shall not be initiated for raising unauthorised construction as indicated therein) is devoid of merit and therefore attracts action under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, and the resolution adopted by the Board of Councillors thereof on the next day approving the proposal of the Chairman to take action thereunder could be revised/reviewed by the High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution is the primary question that calls for an answer on this application filed by the petitioners.2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted at the outset that the opposite parties being the Municipality, its Board of Councillors and its Chairman acted contrary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »