Kolkata Court November 2012 Judgments
Rakesh Khattar Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.729 of 2012 RAKESH KHATTAR Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :30. h November, 2012. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.A.Haque, Advocate For Defendant/Respondent : Ms.S.Mukherjee, Advocate The Court : Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the privaterespondent no.6 to oppose this writ petition at the time when this application is taken up for hearing. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is taken up for hearing ex parte against the private-respondent but in presence of MRS.Smritikana Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the municipal authority. The petitioner complains that the private-respondnet no.6, who is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of premises No.26, Rameshwar Shah Road, Kolkata ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. the Official Liquidator.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CA No.1126 of 2011 BIFR No.510 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF: MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD.(IN LIQN) -AndSTATE BANK OF INDIA -VSTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. CA No.115 of 2012 BIFR No.510 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF: MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD.(IN LIQN) -AndUNITED BANK OF INDIA -VSTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. CA No.426 of 2011 BIFR No.510 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF: MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD.(IN LIQN) Appearance: Mr.R.N.Majumder, Adv.Mr.Susanta Pal, Adv.Mr.J.N.Manna, Adv...for the workeRs.Mr.Aniruddha Roy, Adv...for the State Bank of India. Mr.A.K.Sur, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : November 30, 2012. The Court : The official liquidator says that either the contract labourers directly or through their heirs have pressed their claims before the official liquidator and the official liquidator has tabulated the claims of about 234 persons claiming to be contract labourers engaged by the company p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santa Chowdhury Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.403 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. SANTA CHOWDHURY Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble Mr.PRATAP KUMAR RAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBAL BAIDYA Date :30. h November, 2012. Appearance: Mr.A.Chatterjee, Adv.Ms.K.Dutta, Adv.For the Petitioner. Mr.D.Saha Ray, Adv.Mr.Indranath Mitra, Adv.For the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 Ms.Ishita Chakraborty, Adv.For the Respondent No.8. Mr.Kishore Dutta, Adv.Md.T.M.Siddique, Adv.For the State. The Court :- Assailing grant of permit by the State Transport Authority the issue cropped up in the public interest litigation which ultimately disposed of by the order dated 21st September, 2012 by a Division Bench of this Court quashing the impugned order granting permit and directing de novo hearing of the matter. On that date practically the matter was disposed of but the Court kept the matter pending. not in terms of the said order dated 21st Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Titagarh Wagons Limited Vs. A. P. Mollermaersk a/S and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.3080 of 2012 GA No.3090 of 2012 CS No.359 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TITAGARH WAGONS LIMITED Versus A.P.MOLLER-MAERs.A/S & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date:30. h November, 2012 Appearance Mr.Anindya Mitra, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Jaygit Ganguly, Adv.Mr.Pradip Sancheti, Adv.Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Mr.Subhojit Roy, Adv.Mr.Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Adv.Ms.Puja Das Chowdhury, Adv.By this application the petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 17th October, 2012. At hearing this day Counsel for the petitioner has sought for release of the goods, which prayer has been opposed by the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. It has been contended by Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3 that it is the owner of the containeRs.and for not destuffing the containers pursuant to the order passed, the detention charges incurred on day to day basis till 30th November, 2012 aggregates to approximately Rs.3.20 crores includi...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Reebok India Company and ors..R
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 ORDER SHEET G.A.No.3108 of 2012 C.S.No.377 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ANKUSH COMMERCIAL PVT LTD .Petitioner .Respondents Versus REEBOK INDIA COMPANY & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :30. h November, 2012. Mr.K.R.Thakar, Adv.with Mr.Anurag Bagaria, Adv.for the petitioner The Court : In a suit for a money decree including mandatory injunction to take back the stock lying at the respondent No.1s showroom this application has been filed for interim relief. The case of the petitioner is that it is a franchisee of the respondent No.1. It has no control over the pricing of the goods of the respondent No.1, which is done solely by such respondent. A letter of termination has been issued on 13.8.2012 whereby the franchisee agreement will stand terminated with effect from 30.11.2012. At this stage all that the petitioner seeks is that an inventory be made of the stocks lying in its shop prior to a padlock being put by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Amitava Ganguly Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.158 of 2010 GA No.653 of 2012 GA No.2302 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE AMITAVA GANGULY Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble Mr.PRATAP KUMAR RAY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE And The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBAL BAIDYA Date :30. h November, 2012. Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Mr.Awanikumar Roy, Adversus for the petitioner Ms.Chandreyi Alam, Adv.for Union of India Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Sr.Adv.appears and submits Ms.Rakhi Shroff, Ms.Madhu Priya, Adversus for respondent No.9 Mr.Achintya Banerjee, Mr.Debangshu Mondal, Adversus for K.M.C.The Court : Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The petitioner has raised grievance in this public interest litigation that insecticides to kill the larvae of Malaria and Dengue namely Bacillus thuringiensis which is known as VectoBac 12AS chemical as being used is ineffective due to defect of storing in a container by maintaining temperature 15 to 30 degree Celsius as per the norms specified f...
Tag this Judgment!Tapas Sarkar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.278 of 2011 GA No.157 of 2012 GA No.1485 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TAPAS SARKAR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble MR.PRATAP KUMAR RAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBAL BAIDYA Date :30. h November, 2012. Appearance: Mr.K.Chandra, Adv.Ms.D.Bharadwaj, Adv.Ms.S.Das, Adv.Ms.S.Dasgupta, Adv.For the petitioner. Mr . Aloke Banerjee, Adv.Mr.A Sarkar, Adv.For the Respondent no.9. Mr.Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, learned G.P.Mr.S.Sen, Adv.For the State. Mr.Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.D.Dutta, Adv.Mr.G.Ghorai For Applicant in G.A.No.157 of 2012. Mr.Saptangushu Basu, Sr.Adv.Mr.Indranill Nandi, Adv.For Applicant in G.A.No.1485 of 2012. The Court :- Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. A criminal case has already been instituted against the present applicant who filed the application for being added as a party-respondent in this Public Interest Litigation which centres round ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataii, Kolkata Vs. Birla Corporation L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
GA No.2707 of 2012 I.T.A.T.215 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA Versus BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI SINHA Date :30. h November, 2012. For the appellant : Mr.Shekhar B. Saraf,Advocate For the respondent : Mr.J.P.Khaitan,Sr.Advocate Mr.Sanjay Bhowmik,Advocate Mr.C.S.Das,Advocate The Court :- After hearing Mr.Shekhar B. Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.J.P.Khaitan,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent we are satisfied that the following substantial questions of law arise in this case :1) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case the Tribunal erred by not considering that subsidies which may be used freely, are operational subsidies and not capital subsidies and thus the same are taxable as revenue income ?.2) Whether the Honble ITAT has erred in law as w...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
CP No.183 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: INDO OCCIDENTAL SYMBIOSIS PVT.LTD.AND DARSHAN MEKANI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :30. h November, 2012. Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.A.K.Hazra, Adv.The Court : The company has no defence to the claim of the petitioning creditor on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The petitioner supplied garments to the company. The bills raised by the petitioner appear to have been received by the company and there is no dispute as to the supply having been affected. The petitioner has also relied on a written confirmation of accounts which appears to have been signed on behalf of the company. The petitioner issued a statutory notice on February 17, 2012 claiming a sum of Rs.4,14,600/- on account of the balance principal since a sum of Rs.2 lakh had been paid by the company to the petitioner against the bills of a total value of Rs.6,14,600/-. Despite due receipt of the statutory notice...
Tag this Judgment!Limited Vs. Shrinet and Shandilya Construction Pvt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
AP No.146 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusSHRINET & SHANDILYA CONSTRUCTION PVT LIMITED Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : November 30, 2012. The Court : The receiver has received offers for the eight assets that have been taken possession of out of the forty-two assets that form the subject-matter of agreement between the parties. The best offer received for the eight assets is to the tune of Rs.2 crore. The petitioner will forward particulars of the assets proposed to be sold by the receiver and the best offers received therefor to the respondents. If the respondents do not carry better offers for such assets within a fortnight from their receipt of the notices, the assets will be sold to the highest biddeRs.The petitioner should forward a copy of this order along with the chart or notices that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »