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.
Somen Mukherjeepetitioner Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.Respondents ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1391 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SOMEN MUKHERJEE Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h October, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Rameswar Bhattacharya, Advocate. Mr.Arun Kanti Bera, Advocate. Mr.Subhodeep Mukherjee, Advocate. for the petitioner The Court : By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a resolution dated 21st January, 2010 so also quashing a notification dated 28th March, 2008. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a route permit from Kadamtala Bus Stand to Rajarhat New Town via a portion of the districts of 24-Parganas (North).24Parganas (South).Kolkata and Howrah. Therefore, as per the notification dated 11th February, 2005, the petitioners carriage covered four regions using Vidyasagar Setu. Therefore, the exception was satisfied by the petitioner and on the ground that four regions were not covered, the order of...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Visa Power Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
AP No.825 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.Versus VISA POWER LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :11. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Saha, Adv.Mr.Sanjay Ginodia, Adv.Mr.Tilok Bose, Sr.Adv.The Court : This is a second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to the arbitration agreement. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent for setting up a power plant near Raigarh. The petitioner says that the petitioner has terminated the agreement and is entitled to remove the petitioners goods and equipment from the site. The respondent disputes the petitioners right to remove the goods and equipment. An arbitral reference has already been initiated. The parties agree that an inventory of all the equipment and the goods at the site may immediately be made. The parties also agree that any certified engineer may be appointed for the purpose of measuring t...
Sudipta Roypetitioner Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.Respond
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1413 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUDIPTA ROY Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h October, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Rameswar Bhattacharya, Advocate. Mr.Arun Kanti Bera, Advocate. Mr.Subhodeep Mukherjee, Advocate. for the petitioner The Court : By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a resolution dated 21st January, 2010 so also quashing a notification dated 28th March, 2008. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a route permit from Kadamtala Bus Stand to Rajarhat New Town via a portion of the districts of 24-Parganas (North).24Parganas (South).Kolkata and Howrah. Therefore, as per the notification dated 11th February, 2005, the petitioners carriage covered four regions using Vidyasagar Setu. Therefore, the exception was satisfied by the petitioner and on the ground that four regions were not covered, the order of reje...
Kishan Bhaniramka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Ci ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO No.236 of 2012 WP 51.of 2010 KISHAN BHANIRAMKA Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXIII, BEFORE: The Hon'ble KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, Acting Chief Justice And The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :11. h October, 2012. For the Appellant Mr.R.N.Dutta, Advocate For Rspondent : Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate The Court : By this appeal, the appellant impugned the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2012 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 158BD was dismissed. The learned Single Judge observed that there was no illegality and infirmity in the said notice. We briefly record the facts leading to filing writ petition and preferring appeal, as follows; The appellant is a regular assessee and is subjected to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, Ward No.38(1).The returns are being filed with him regularly. On 29th October, ...
Bbr Construction Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
AP No.579 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction BBR CONSTRUCTION Co.Versus UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :11. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Saiful Alam, Adv.Mr.R.Sengupta, Adv.Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The petitioner was engaged by the railways for the construction of railway bridges and complains in this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of the arbitrary termination of the agreement on specious grounds. The petitioner says that a performance bank guarantee has been wrongfully invoked and the payment thereunder received by the railways. In addition, the petitioner says that the security deposit furnished by the petitioner has been forfeited and monies due to the petitioner for the work done have been wrongfully withheld. The railways seek to justify the acts on their part on the basis of what the railways perceived to be the failure on the part o...
Smt. Rina Dhar Vs. Smt. Bani Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
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.384 of 2006 A.P.O.No.385 of 2006 A.P.No.455 of 1998 SMT. RINA DHAR versus SMT. BANI DHAR & ORS.For the Appellants : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the Respondent (No.1to5) : Mr.Haradhan Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Amitava Pyne, Advocate Mr.Subhrangshu Dutta, Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Advocate For Respondent No.6 Sarder Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate A.K.Roy, Advocate Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Siddharta Ruj, Advocate Heard on : Judgment on : September 17, 28 and October 5, 2012 October 11, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.Amarendranath Dhar established a business of paper by the name of Imperial Paper House.He took his nephew Kamal Kumar Dhar in his business to assist him. His sons were minor, hence he got assistance from his nephew. Amarendranath ...
Tapan Garaipetitioner Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.Respondents
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1400 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TAPAN GARAI Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h October, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Rameswar Bhattacharya, Advocate. Mr.Arun Kanti Bera, Advocate. Mr.Subhodeep Mukherjee, Advocate. for the petitioner The Court : By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a resolution dated 21st January, 2010 so also quashing a notification dated 28th March, 2008. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a route permit from Kadamtala Bus Stand to Rajarhat New Town via a portion of the districts of 24-Parganas (North).24Parganas (South).Kolkata and Howrah. Therefore, as per the notification dated 11th February, 2005, the petitioners carriage covered four regions using Vidyasagar Setu. Therefore, the exception was satisfied by the petitioner and on the ground that four regions were not covered, the order of reje...
Ajit Kumar Basu Vs. the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP 128.OF 200.AJIT KUMAR BASU Versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h October, 2012. Mr.Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr.Chandra Nath Sarkar, Advocate for petitioner Ms.S.Ghosh, Advocate for respondents The Court :- The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to inclusion of stagnant increment as a part of pay for calculating pension benefits of the petitioner. This issue has been decided in WP 90.of 2007 by order dated 9.2.2012. An application for review was filed by the Calcutta Port Trust and the same was dismissed by order dated 16.8.2012. Subsequently certain typographical errors have been corrected by order dated 25.9.2012. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has already been decided in the aforementioned writ petition and the orders passed therein be followed to maintain comity of Courts as no a...
Vs. the High Court Employees'S Welfare Associationrespond
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.2675 of 2012 In WP No.1630 of 2010 with CC No.28 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAMAR GHOSH & ANOTHER Versus Petitioners THE HIGH COURT EMPLOYEES'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER. Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPEN SEN Date :11. h October, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Soumya Majumdar, ADvocate For High Court : Mr.Alak Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For State : Mr.Anindya Mitra, Ld. Advocate General Mr.Subrata Galukdar, Advocate The Court : With regard to the statements made in Paragraph 13 of this Application, it has been suggested that for finalisation of the matter regarding fresh Rules to be framed in connection with the Revision of Pay and Allowances of the Employees of the High Court, Calcutta, the State Government, at present, can grant additional 2 (two) increments in the form of High Court Allowances to the concerned High Court Employees. Mr.Mitra, learned Senior Counsel, Advocate General, stated that over an...
Sourav Ganguly Vs. Mahuaa Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
GA No.1989 of 2012 GA No.2168 of 2012 AP No.480 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side SOURAV GANGULY Versus MAHUAA MEDIA PVT.LTD.Appearance Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Samrat Sen, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Mr.S.Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Mr.Amit Agarwalla, Ms.Deboshree Saha, Advocate Advocate Advocate Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :11. h October, 2012. The Court : AP No.480 of 2012 is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. GA No.1989 of 2012 is the respondents application for vacating the subsisting interim order. GA No.2168 of 2012 is an application by the petitioner for steps being taken against the deponent of an affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner moved the petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act ex parte on the ground that if notice was served, the meagre assets of the respondent could be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »