Kolkata Court January 2012 Judgments
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
G.A.No.75 of 2012 WP No.601 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TAPAS HAIT Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Defendant/Respondent For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Sakya Sen,Advocate. For KMC/Respondent : Mr.Gour Roychowdhury,Advocate. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :31. t January, 2012. The Court : Let affidavit in opposition to the writ petition and reply thereto filed in Court today be kept on record. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the stop work notice issued by the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and in the application being G.A.No.75 of 2012 in connection with the said writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings under section 400 of the 1980 Act. In the application, the petitioner is seeking for a direction upon the authorities of the Corporation to carry out minot...
Tag this Judgment!Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd and ors. Vs. P S Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
GA No.240 of 2012 CC No.209 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Contempt) ORIGINAL SIDE TETULIA COKE PLANT (P) LTD & ORS.Versus P S BHATTACHARYA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBASISH KAR GUPTA Date :31. t January, 2012. Appearance : Ms.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate. for the applicants Mr.Kalimuddin Mondal, Advocate. Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate. Mr.Partha Basu, Advocate. for the contemnORS.The Court : This is an application arising out of the contempt application filed by the petitioner-company for alleged violation of an order dated March 25, 2010 passed in the writ application. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors Nos.4 and 5 on instructions that the principal amount has already been paid to the petitioner-company in compliance of the aforesaid order dated March 25, 2010 passed in the writ application. A prayer is made on behalf of the alleged contemner Nos.4 and 5 to file affidavit of compliance. A further prayer i...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Ranjana Kar Mukherjee Vs. Senior Divisional Manager Life Insuranc ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in case no.CC 2010/58 dismissing thereby the claim for reimbursement of Rs.1,40,200/-. The case of the appellant/complainant, in short, is that she is a lady aged 50 years and has been suffering from Menorrhagia, Ecoli and recurrent UTI. She visited AIIMS, New Delhi. The diagnosis was Type-2 D.M./Anaemia Hypothyroidism etc. There was no whisper of IHD and no management was prescribed for IHD. The local physician Dr. B. K. Biswas was consulted on 04.01.08. In the side note of the prescription he remarked IHD for the first time but without any management and reference for check up by a cardiologist. The patient thereafter went to CMC, Vellore with her problems on 15.01.08. Thorough investigations were done. The prescription of Dr. Biswas was placed before them but they did not give any importance to it. The patient again visited CMC, Vellore for review on 11.0...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shentracon Chemicals Ltd Vs. Unknown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
CP No. 504 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : M/S. SHENTRACON CHEMICALS LTD. AND KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 30th January, 2012. Ms.Asha Gourisaria Gutgutia, Ms. Sayantani Shaw for the petitioning creditor. Mr.Sudip Deb for the company The Court : The claim appears to be barred by the laws of limitation; at least there is a strong case made out that the claim may be barred by limitation. The petitioning creditor has already launched a suit for the self- same claim. That, by itself, would not disentitle the petitioner from maintaining a creditor's winding-up petition in respect of the same claim. However, it appears that by the time the statutory notice was issued preparatory to the present petition being filed, limitation may already have set in. The transaction was for the period upto the year 1996. There is no dispute that the last payment made by the company, for the purpose of Section 19 of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Prime Impex Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
APOT No.596 OF 201.GA 368.of 2011 WITH AP 86.of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.PRIME IMPEX LTD.Versus THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :25. h January, 2012. The Court :- No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in spite of the order passed on 11.1.2012 which is peremptory in nature so far the filing of affidavit is concerned. Instead of hearing the appeal in a formal way we take the hearing of the appeal dispensing with all the formalities as the learned Counsel for the respondent is available, who waives the service of Notice-of-Appeal. This appeal is taken out against ad interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge while entertaining application under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1996).The application is still pending before the learned Trial Judge for final hearing on completion of ...
Tag this Judgment!Muktipada Seth and ors.Petitioners Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.Re ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
WP No.31 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MUKTIPADA SETH & ORS.Petitioners Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Kalyan Banerjee, Sr.Adv.with MRS.Nibedita Pal & Mr.R.Dhar, Adversus For Respondent No.6 : Mr.K.K.Maitra, Sr.Adv.with Mr.T.B.Saha, Adv.For State Respondents : Mr.Kishore Dutta with Mr.Bilwadal Bhattacharyay, Adversus BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date :25. h January, 2012. The petitioners in this WP under art. 226 dated January 13, 2012 are questioning an undated order (at page58) of the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Burdwan. A copy of the order was forwarded to the fiRs.petitioner by a memo dated January 9, 2012. By the order M.R.distributorship of the fiRs.petitioner has been temporarily tagged with one M/S.A.N.Dutta & BrotheRs.another M.R.Distributor in the district. It was mentioned that the distributorship was tagged in the interest of smooth functioning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Ray Vs. Devendra Bajoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
GA No.102 of 2010 With CS No.129C of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: Gautam Ray Versus Devendra Bajoria & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:25. 01.2012 Appearance: Ms.Mousumi Bhattacharjee, Adv.led by Mr.Anindya Mitra Sr.Adv.With Ms.Neelima Chatterjee, Adv., Ms.Aindrila Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee Sr.Adv.Mr.Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv.Mr.Bhaskar Mitra, Adv.The Court: This is an application by the third defendant for dismissal of the suit. It is argued by Ms.Bhattacharjee that the second defendant was a borrower to whom the fiRs.defendant had lent and advanced sums of money. The property in question at Alipur was given as security for such loan. The second defendant could not repay the loan. In those circumstances, the fiRs.defendant enforced the security. The fiRs.defendant is the shareholder and director of the third defendant. The property has been purchased by this defendant. According...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Rubber Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bengal Waterproof Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 25.01.2012 APOT 3 of 2012 GA 19.of 2012 CS 15.of 2011 Bihar Rubber Co.LTD.& ORS.versus Bengal Waterproof LTD.& ORS.APOT 3 of 2012 GA 19.of 2012 CS 15.of 2011 Greatwall Vanijya LTD.versus Bengal Waterproof LTD.& ORS.Mr.J.K.Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Sr.Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mr.Saibal Ganguly, Advocate for he respondent no.10 Mr.Sudipta Sarkar, Sr.Advocate for the Company/appellant Mr.P.C.Sen, Sr.Advocate for the respondent no.4 The Court :- It appears that there has been mistake in the prayer (a) and also the undertakings given therein. Leave granted to rectify the same. Subject to the aforesaid correction in couRs.of today the following order is passed. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. In default of rectifying the prayer as above in c...
Tag this Judgment!Mst Afsari Begum Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
WP No.37 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE Ms.AFSARI BEGUM Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS DATED, THE 25TH JANUARY , 2012. Appearance Mr.Suman Dutta, Advocate Mr.R.A.Agarwal, Advocate Mr.Subrata Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 13, 2012 is alleging inaction on the part of the Additional Registrar of Assurances-II, Kolkata. The allegation is that in the capacity of the registering officer the Additional Registrar has not considered the petitioners representation dated September 29, 2011 (at p.99).By making the representation the petitioner requested the registering officer to destroy the document that was presented by the private respondent for registration, on the grounds that the document remained unclaimed for a period exceeding two yeaRs.and also to register a deed of declaration presented by her. Mr.Dutta appearing for the petitioner submits th...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Goutam Sonkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE A.P.No.1098 of 2011 MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus GOUTAM SONKAR & ANR. & A.P.No.39 of 2012 MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus GOUTAM SONKAR & ANR. & G.A.No.190 of 2012 A.P.No.409 of 2010 GOUTAM SONKAR Versus MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Appearance Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate Mr.K.K.Pandey, Advocate Mr.Abhirup Chatterjee, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :25. h January, 2012. The Court : A.P.No.1098 of 2011 is the financiers earlier application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the post-award stage. The petitioner says that in view of the more recent application, A.P.No.39 of 2012, having been filed, A.P.No.1098 of 2011 may be disposed of. G.A.No.190 of 2012 is the hirers application for recalling an order dismissing A.P.No.409 of 2010 for default. A.P.No.409 of 2010 was the hirers application for challenging the award. This is the second application for restoration. The financier...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »