Kolkata Court January 2012 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.
Smt. Varinder Kaur Sodhi Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
WP No. 1042 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. VARINDER KAUR SODHI Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL and; OTHERS Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date : 13th January, 2012. Appearance : Mrs. Santi Das, Advocate. ... for the petitioner Mr. Asim Ganguly, Advocate. Mr. Pankaj Haldar, Advocate. ... for the State The Court : The petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Language Group. Her appointment was approved with effect from 1st July, 1988. At the time of approving the appointment of the petitioner, her educational qualification was B.A.B.Ed. Her said educational qualification was recorded in the approval letter. Subsequently, she enhanced her educational qualification by acquiring Master Degree in Hindi in 2002 from a recognised University, namely, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith. 2 The result of the said examination was published on 10th February, 2003. The petitioner's cla...
Terai Tea Company Limited Vs. Nathmal Kedia and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1 A. P. O. No. 435 of 2010 A.P.O.T. No. 577 of 2010 Arising out of G. A. No. 1331 of 2010 C. S. No. 106 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Terai Tea Company Limited Versus Nathmal Kedia and; Ors. For the appellant : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate For respondent : Mr. Ahin Choudhuri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Roibat Banerji, Advocate Mr. S. S. Khanra, AdvocateHeard on : 09.11.2011, 16.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 07.12.2011 and 14.12.2011Judgement on : 11.01.2012 The Court : This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgement and order dated October 6, 2010 dismissing its application for interim reliefs and also vacating all interim orders, if any. In connection with a suit for specific performance the plaintiff had filed an application for injunction before the learned Trial Judge. The case of the plaintiff/ petitioner inter alia was that the respondent no. 3 herein was the owner of a tea estate of which before August, 2009 the proforma 2 respondent no. 4...
Ap No. 897 of 2011 Shristi Vs. Mfar Construction Pvt. Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AP No. 897 of 2011 SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus MFAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. and; AP No. 903 of 2011 MFAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Versus SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Appearance Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Monoj Kr. Tewari, Advocate Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Advocate Mr. J. Pandit, Advocate Ms. P. Goswami, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 11th January, 2012. The Court : A.P. No. 897 of 2011 is the earlier petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the owner and A.P. No. 903 of 2011 is the subsequent petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the contractor. 2 Under an agreement in writing dated March 13, 2009, the contractor was engaged by the owner for the construction of a...
M/S. Prime Impex Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 11.01.2012 APOT 59 of 2011 GA 368.of 2011 GA 368.of 2011 AP 86.of 2011 M/S.Prime Impex LTD.versus The State Trading Corporation of India LTD.The Court :- There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. We are of the view having seen the impugned judgment and order this should not have been passed against all the respondents before the learned Court below. At the most this injunction order could have been passed as against the respondent no.1 before the learned Trial Judge particularly when we notice the respondent no.1 herein in their application under Section 9 has not even prayed for any relief against the appellant Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly the arbitration agreement is between the respondent and the appellant no.1 and the appellant no.1 is a limited company which has got distinct and separate identity from that of ...
M/S.Transcon Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.997 of 2011 M/S.TRANSCo.ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VERSUS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS WP NO.1509 OF 200.INSTITUTE FOR INDIAN LABOUR & ANR. Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS For Petitioner : MR.SAMIT TALUKDER,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.SAPTANGSHU BASU,SR.ADVOCATE. FOR KMC : MR.BARIN BANERJEE,ADVOCATE, MR.D.CHAKRABORTY,ADVOCATE,MRS.S.CHAKRABORTY,ADVOCATE, MR.S.K.DEBNATH,ADVOCATE. FOR TENANTS : MR.S.MUKHERJEE,ADVOCATE. For Respondent no.9 : MR.DULAL DEY, ADVOCATE. For Respondent No.9 : MR.ARUNAVO GHOSH,SR.ADVOCATE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :11. h January, 2012. The Court : Let vakalatnama filed by Mr.Dulal Dey, who submits that his clients are the owners of the respondent no.9, which is disputed by Mr.Ghosh, learned advocate, be kept on record. Leave granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit. Let the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be kept on record. L...
Citicorp Finance (i) Ltd. Vs. Anadi Kumar Majee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
AP No.961 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CITICORP FINANCE (I) LTD.Versus ANADI KUMAR MAJEE & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :11. h January, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Arif Ali, Adv.Mr.Rahul Karmakar, Adv.The Court : Though the respondents were not represented earlier, it is submitted by advocate formerly representing the respondents that he has no instructions in the matter. The respondents had earlier submitted that they be afforded some time to pay off the defaulted amount. Since the respondents are not represented despite being aware of the proceedings and a substantial amount in excess of Rs.4 lakh remains due only on account of defaulted instalments, the Receiver appointed in the matter is directed to take possession of the equipment being the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties. The Receiver will be paid a further remuneration of 600 GM and all expenses for the Receivers travel, accommodati...
M/S. Citicorp Finance (i) Ltd. Vs. Md. Riyaz and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
EC No.76 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINRY ORIGIANL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: M/S.Citicorp Finance (I) LTD.Versus Md.Riyaz & Anr. Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:11. 01.2012 The Court: I have seen the report of the Deputy Sheriff of Kolkata dated 10th January, 2012. The report states that in accordance with my order dated 13th December, 2011 the second judgment debtor Md.Afaque Raza Khan was arrested by the police on 28th December, 2011 and was released on bail according to my said order on the condition that he should appear before the Court on 11th January, 2012. This report of the Deputy Sheriff is on the basis of a report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division, Kolkata. Unfortunately, the second judgment-debtor is not present in court today. Therefore, the bail stands cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division, Kolkata, is to ensure that the second judgment-debtor does not leave the jurisdiction of Raja B...
Citicorp Finance (i) Ltd. Vs. Kulbir Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
CC No.178 of 2011 AP No.311 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Contempt) ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF:CITICORP FINANCE (I) LTD.Versus KULBIR SINGH & ANR. For Petitioner :Mrs.Ipsita Banerjee, Advocate with Mr.Arif Ali, Advocate. For Alleged Contemnot Nos.1 & 2 :Mr.Mir Anwar, Advocate. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date :11. h January, 2012. The Court :-The alleged contemnot no.1 is present in Court today. So far as the alleged contemnot no.2 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.Mir Anwar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of both the alleged contemnors that she is suffering from paralysis. This Court is apprised by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors that the alleged contemnot No.1 is the son of the alleged contemnot no.2. Let the alleged contemnot no.1 file an affidavit disclosing therein the status of health of the alleged contemnot no.2 and on that basis this Court shall issue further directions on the question ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1 CP No.392 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of: TSAI ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD.And Madhukar Khemka BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :11. h January, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Jayeeta Sinha, Adv.with Mr.P.Sarawagi,Adv.The Court : This winding up application has come up for final disposal after publication of notice. The matter appeared as Application New on 10.1.2012 and at the time of call nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner company not any accommodation was sought for and this Court directed the matter to appear today as Company Matter Adjourned (Unopposed). Even today at the time of call nobody appeared for the company. The application was filed by the petitioner against the company for not payment of loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- as principal and interest for Rs.13,09,279/- from October 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010. The application was admitted and it was held that the applicant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-...
Sm. Hashi Mukherjee Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
APO No.267 of 2009 WP No.678 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SM. HASHI MUKHERJEE Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRATAP KUMAR RAY The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRASENJIT MANDAL Date :11. h January, 2012. Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.Subrata Basu, Adv.Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.Bidyut Dutt, Adv.Bijan Dutta, Adv.for the Appellant Mr.Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sandip Kumar De, Adv.for the respondents Pratap Kumar Ray, J. : Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the respective notices for intermediate revaluation of the concerned premises of the writ petitioner for 4th Quarter 1989-90 and the annual valuation of respective three quarters namely, 4th Quarter of 1993-94, 4th Quarter of 1999-2000, 4th Quarter of 2005-06 of writ application W.P.No.678 of 2009 was filed. The writ petitioner prayed following orders : a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order or order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »