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.
Vs. State of West Bengal and Othersrespo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
WP No.1 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMr.HOSPITALS LTD.Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date :4. h January, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Samaraditya Pal, Senior Advocate. Ms.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate. Mr.Pushan Kar, Advocate. Mr.Souvik Majumdar, Advocate. Mr.Sanjoy Bose, Advocate. Ms.Tapati Chatterjee, Advocates. for the petitioner Mr.Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Senior Advocate. Mr.Kishore Datta, Advocate. Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate. Mr.S.Bandyopadhyay, Advocate. . For the State/Respondents. The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 2, 2012 is seeking the following principal reliefs : (a) A Writ or and/or Writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith prepare a list of the victims and certify the list and arrange payment of compensation to the family of the victims out of the money to be paid by the petitioner; ...
Ashoke Paul Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
GA No.3329 of 2011 WITH CS No.157 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE ASHOKE PAUL Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA Date :4. January 2012. For the plaintiff : Mr.Dipak Shome,advocate Ms.Smita Das De,advocate Ms.Pratima Roy Choudhury,advocate For the petitioner/defendant : Mr.Amitava Das,advocate WITH Mr.Sudip Pal Choudhury,advocate The Court : - This is an application for setting aside an ex parte decree passed on 28 January 2011 in an undefended or uncontested suit. Needless to mention, on the date of hearing, the plaintiff himself appeared and gave evidence in Court in support of the case made out in the plaint and proved all the documents on which the cause of action of the plaintiff was based. Needless to mention further that after being fully satisfied that the writ of summons was duly served upon the defendant and the defendant failed to even enter appearance to contest the suit and that the department concerned also issued a cer...
Jagdish Kumar Arora Vs. Lachmandas Chotmurada(Arora) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
GA No.387 of 2011 GA No.2086 of 2011 With CS No.209 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA Versus LACHMANDAS CHOTMURADA(ARORA) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :2. d January, 2012. Mr.Hirak Kumar Mitra, Sr.Advocate, Mr.M.K. Seal for the plaintiff. Mr.Amitesh Banerjee for defendant no.1. The Court : Ten days had been granted on 22nd November, 2011 for implementation of the order dated 19th July, 2011. Inspite of such extension the flat has not been handed over to the defendant no.1. This, therefore, has caused a hindrance in the defendant no.1 relinquishing his rights in the shop rooms which are being run by the plaintiff under orders of Court. Let necessary documents of transfer of right, title and interest by the defendant no.1 be executed and the said be retained by his Advocate for a week. In the event during the said period if the flat is not handed over by its owners to the defendant no.1, let such documents ex...
Chirawa Investment Ltd Vs. C.i.T. Wb I
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
ITA No.83 OF 200.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE CHIRAWA INVESTMENT LTD Versus C.I.T.WB- I BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :2. d January, 2012. The Court :- This appeal was admitted by an order of this Court dated 16 February 2010 on the following substantial questions of law;i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest of Rs.1,06,319/- paid by it to its holding company on money borrowed for payment of dividend on the preference and equity shares held by the holding company and its nominees and its purported findings in this behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perveRs.?. ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in proceeding on the assumption that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.6.60 lakhs during the previous year ended March 31, ...
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Ravi Kumar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 02.01.2012 GA 297.of 2011 APO 2.of 2010 AP 27.of 2009 L & T Finance LTD.versus Ravi Kumar & Anr. The Court :- The Receiver reported to this Court that all his efforts had gone in vain. The respondent no.1 Mr.Ravi Kumar in breach of his assurance as well as undertaking given to him has failed to produce the vehicle to the Receiver. It seems to us this gentleman is avoiding this Court. Therefore both Mr.Ravi Kumar and Mr.Raj Mandal Gupta, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are directed to be personally present on next Monday without fail, failing which appropriate order will be passed by this Court. Let this order be communicated by the Advocate on record of Mr.Bose as well as by the Receiver. It seems to us it is impossible for the Receiver to carry out the order unless he gets effective assistance, and as suggested by Mr.Bose as well as by...
M/S. Belseri Tea Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Radheshyam Dhanuka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
CP No.133 of 2008 In the High Court at Calcutta Original Jurisdiction Original Side In the matter of: M/S.Belseri Tea Co.(India) LTD.Versus Radheshyam Dhanuka Before: The Honble Justice Sanjib Banerjee Date:02. 01.2012 Appearance: Mr.M.S.Tiwari, Adv., The Court:- No affidavit in opposition has been filed, though a copy thereof may have been forwarded by the company to the petitioning creditor. The company is not represented even at the second call. The claim of the petitioner is on account of price of goods sold and delivered. In the statutory notice of December 19, 2007, the petitioner claimed to have supplied petroleum products to the companys tea estate in Sonitpur, Assam. The petitioner contended that bills had been raised on the company by the petitioner between October 5, 2005 and October 29, 2005 amounting to Rs.3,97,384/-. The statutory notice said that Rs.91,485.63 had been paid by the company against the bills and the balance remained due. The petitioner also sought interest ...
Sandeep Jhunjhunwala Vs. the K.M.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
WP No.1787 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SANDEEP JHUNJHUNWALA Versus THE K.M.C.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :2. d January, 2012. The Court : This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner/appellant before the Municipal Building Tribunal being aggrieved against the order dated 23rd August, 2004 passed by the Chairman, Municipal Corporation. Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal In the order passed in Appeal No.74 of 1995, the Appellate Tribunal recorded that the demolition case is pending since 1995 and the case record was called for. On 19th June, 1995 and 54 reminders were issued for the record but neither any record not any intimation in respect thereof was received from the Municipal Commissioner or any other officers on his behalf in spite of drawing personal attention of the Municipal Corporation. It was observed by the Appellate Tribunal that the case cannot be heard in the absence ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
CP No.123 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of :THE BENGAL DOOARS NATIONAL TEA Co.LTD.And SANJAY BANSAL Appearance Mr.K.C.Garg, Advocate Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :2. d January, 2012. The Court : The claim is on account of money lent and advanced. The petitioning creditor claims that the petitioning creditor had advanced money in cash to the company as and when it required it and the company apparently agreed to refund the amount together with interest. The petitioner cannot show any primary documents in support of the transactions. In any event, the payments, according to the petitioner, were made in cash. The petitioner relies on a purported balance confirmation document executed on behalf of the company. The petitioner also says that cheques of total value in excess of Rs.48 lakh were made over by the company to the petitioner and upon the dishonour of such cheques, there arose a statutory pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›