Kolkata Court October 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.
Govind Prasad Dalmiapetitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. West Bengal State Electr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE C.S.No.323 of 1993 Govind Prasad Dalmia Petitioner/ Plaintiff Versus West Bengal State Electricity Board Respondent /Defendant BEEFORE: The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Ray Mr. Dhruba Ghose, Adv. Mr. Sib Shankar Das, Adv. for the plaintiff Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Bose,Adv. for the defendant Judgment on :9. h October, 2012. Asim Kumar Ray, J.This is a suit on obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent praying for a decree of Rs. 29,89,511.77/- along with other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff Govind Prasad Dalmia is carrying on business of manufacturing aluminum conductors under the name and style of M/s. Govind Prasad Dalmia and Sons at Deogarh, Bihar. The said business is duly registered as small scale industry with the District Industrial Centre, Deogarh, Bihar having registration No.03/14/01806/SSI dated 26-02-1977. The defendant West Bengal State Electricity Board had f...
G.T.Z.(India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. M/S Power Electronic Engineers and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
ORDER SHEET T No.103 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE G.T.Z.(INDIA) PVT.LTD.Versus M/S POWER ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :9. h October, 2012. Mr.P.Roy, Ms.S.Mukherjee, Mr.A.Chatterjee, Mr.S.Banerjeeappear. The Court : This is a clause 13 application, by the plaintiff in the suit mentioned below. Affidavit of service is on record. None appears to oppose this application. The facts disclosed are very disheartening. A Division Bench of our Court by its judgment and order made on 23rd September, 2009 in F.M.A.No.453 of 2008 with C.A.N.No.9511 of 2008 in M/S.G.T.Z.(India Pvt.Ltd.) Versus M/S.Power Electronic Engineers & Anr. directed the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit in question in no case beyond February, 2010.Mr.Roy for the petitioner, which is the plaintiff in the Barasat suit submits that nothing happened in the suit upto February, 2010. On 29th June, 2011 the suit was dismiss...
Panwa Devi Bhuiya Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
ORDER SHEET WP NO.596 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PANWA DEVI BHUIYA Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :9. h October, 2012. For petitioner : Mr.P.Ghosh with Mr.S.Chatterjee. For respondents : Mr.Bijoy Kumar. The Court : The only dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the date of entitlement of the petitioner to get monetary compensation from the respondent authorities after her husbands service was terminated on medical grounds. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited, i.e.the respondent No.2 herein and that he was terminated on medical ground on March 8, 1994. An application for employment in favour of his wife was made by the husband of the petitioner himself. It appears from annexure-P4 to the writ petition that as early as in the year 1999 the respondent authorities had taken a decision that instead of employment monetary compe...
Sri Anath Bondhu Kundu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.602 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.ANATH BONDHU KUNDU Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBASISH KAR GUPTA Date :9. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Anath Bondhu Kundu (In person) Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.For the Respondents. The petitioner, leave is Court granted to :- On add the BSNL prayer as made party on behalf respondent of to the this proceedings. Since Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta is appearing on behalf of newly added respondent, the formality of serving a copy of the writ application upon the respondent is dispensed with. The writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the newly added respondent no.5 to reconnect the telephone connection bearing No.22410182 without insisting upon the payment of arrear bills amounting to Rs.2197/- (due date August 26, 2011) as also extending the facility under Sulobh-II scheme. According to the petitioner, the telephone connection under r...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Asudev Garai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction AP No.1092 of 2011 MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus ASUDEV GARAI & ANR. AND AP No.794 of 2012 ASUDEV GARAI & ANR. Versus MAGMA FINCORP LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :9. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.L.R. Mandal, Adv.The Court : AP No.794 of 2012 is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an award dated July 27, 2012. AP No.1092 of 2011 is the finance companys previous petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. The parties have resolved their present disputes and have also agreed to the award being set aside and a fresh reference on a limited aspect being made to an agreed arbitrator. A draft order, signed by advocates representing the parties and the petitioner in AP No.794 of 2012, has been handed over. The appearing parties say that though the guarantor is not represented, the obligation to pay under the...
Trustees Trust Estate of Mutti Lall Seal and ors. Vs. Asish Seal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, Acting Chief Justice And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 09.10.2012 APOT 47 of 2012 GA 271.of 2012 ATA 1.of 2011 Trustees Trust Estate of Mutti Lall Seal & ORS.versus Asish Seal & ORS.The Court :- There is a defect by omission of words in prayer (a).We permit appellants to supply the appropriate words in couRs.of today failing which the order passed hereunder shall stand recalled. Subject to above and of couRs.subject to question of maintainability of the appeal there will be an order in terms of prayer (a).We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge. We are of the view considering the prima facie case made out as well as the balance of convenience no interim order is called for at this stage as the methodology of appointment laid down by the learned Trial Judge of one trust...
State of West Bengal and anr. Vs. M/S. N. Bhakat and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha) A.P.O. No.241 of 2012 A.P. No.435 of 2008 STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Vs. M/S. N. BHAKAT & CO. & ANR. [ For the Appellant [ For the Respondent : : Mr. Samrat Sen, Advocate Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amitava Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Navojit Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate Heard on : September 25, 26, 27, 28 and October 1, 2012. Judgment on : October 9, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.BACKDROP The subject matter of appeal would relate to an order passed by the learned Single Judge, declining to set aside and/or interfere with an award published under the old Arbitration Law being the Arbitration Act, 1940. His Lordship, by judgment and order dated March 28, 2012 appearing at page 299-307 of the paper book, upheld the award except the claim No.2 that was found to be repeated in claim No.4. In ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
CP 23.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BEARDSELL POLYMERS PVT.LTD.AND THE INDIA TRADING Co.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :9. h October, 2012. Mr.A.Mitra, Adv.appeaRs.The Court : The company is not represented even at the second call. the The company had not been represented after service of the petition and directions issued for petitioner to the company. filing affidavits have been communicated by the An affidavit in such regard has been filed. The claim of the petitioner is on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The petitioner has relied on the primary documents relating to the transaction being the bills raised by the petitioner on the company. bills refer to oral orders for delivery placed by the company. The The company appears to have made part payments and finally made over a cheque dated March 22, 2012 for Rs.1,50,222/- in pro tanto discharge of its liability to the petitioner. The petitioner says ...
Nantu Chakraborty Alias Gopal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 3(7) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 8(1) of 2007 thereby convicting the appellant Nantu Chakraborty alias Gopal for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause. The appellant herein along with two others were arrayed to face charge under Section 363/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and, as a result, trial commenced against them. The co-accused persons were, however, found not guilty and were acquitted from the charges. The present appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, his conviction and sentence was recorded by the...
Subal Roy Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 266 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant Subal Roy for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made, in fact, two-fold argument. Firstly, according to him, there is a major discrepancy as to the date of incident. According to the First Information Report, Mr. Mukhopadhyay contended, the alleged incident had taken place on 03.03.2008 at 9.30 a.m. But, according to the statement of witnesses, the alleged incident had taken place on 02.03.2008 at 9.00 a.m. and, secondly, the P.W. 6, the only eyewitness, was not believed by the learned Trial Court, but conviction was rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »