Kolkata Court December 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.
Mohit Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
ORDER SHEET SHEET NO.1 WP NO.898 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF:MOHIT FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY LTD.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date :18. h December, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Laxmi Pal, Advocate with Mr.S.Banerjee, Advocate. For K.M.C.: Mr.B.Mukherjee, Advocate. The Court :-Though this writ petition was listed today under the heading To Be Mentioned., the writ petition itself is being taken up for hearing considering the scope of controveRs.as urged before me by Mr.Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this matter direction was given for filing affidavit-in-opposition. The time within which such affidavit was to be filed has lapsed. But again, considering the scope of the writ petition, I do not think it is necessary to give extension of time to file any affidavit. The writ petitioner had applied for mutation and amalgamation of premises bearing numbers No.22E,...
Shelter Developer Pvt Ltd and ors Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.813 of 2012 SHELTER DEVELOPER PVT LTD & ORS Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :18. h December, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Basu, Senior Advocate For K.M.C.: Mr.Gurudas Mitra with Ms.E.Ghosh, Advocates The Court : The petitioners wanted to get their names mutated as owners of the property which they purchased from the erstwhile owner thereof through a number of registered Deeds of Conveyance executed between 6th November, 2006 and 19th February, 2008. As such, they tendered an application for mutation for its submission before the municipal authority. Since the municipal authority refused to accept such application for mutation from the petitioneRs.the petitioners have come before this Court with this writ petition seeking issuance of direction upon the municipal authority for accepting the petitioners such application for mu...
Eye Catchers Saloon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kippy Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
CA No.777 of 2012 CP No.322 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : EYE CATCHERS SALOON PVT.LTD.-Versus- KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Ms.Sucharita Biswas, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :December 18, 2012. The Court : The company has applied for recalling the order of admission on the ground that Advocate appearing for the company had no instructions to submit to an order for payment of the amount claimed. An affidavit has been filed by Advocate who had represented the company when the order of admission was passed on November 20, 2012. It appears that there may have been lack of communication which may have resulted in some confusion. Since the company offers to put in the entire amount as a condition precedent for the order of admission being recalled, subject to the sum found to be due in terms of the order of admission being put in within a fortnight from date, the orde...
Developments Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
TA NO.153 OF 201.WITH T NO.182 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Developments Limited versus Union of India & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :17. h December, 2012. Mr.J.Saha, Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Mr.B.Biswas, Mr.P.Mukherjeeappear. Mr.S.BanerjeeappeaRs.Mr.S.Pal ChowdhuryappeaRs.The Court : Mr.Banerjee for the Railways, at the outset submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the suit by virtue of clause 2703 of the IRS Conditions of Contract. This clause stipulates that the place where the tender is accepted would alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of the contract. Now, the place of acceptance of tender is in dispute. Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, learned advocate for the plaintiff submits that their offer was followed by a counter offer by the Railways which was accepted by the plaintiff in Kolkata within the jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. ...
M/S. Ideal Engineering Wrights Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
AP No.628 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.IDEAL ENGINEERING WRIGHTS -VersusUNION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Ms.Ranjana Guha, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :December 17, 2012. The Court : The arbitration agreement has been found to be in order at the previous stage and the two objections raised by the respondent were repelled by the order dated January 4, 2012. The respondent says that Clause 25 of the general terms governing Central Public Works Department Contracts stipulates that a named officer would appoint the arbitrator and if there is no appointment by the named officer, there would be no arbitration at all. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in view of such clause, the Chief Justice or his designate should allow the appointing authority to appoint the arbitrator. Though such objection had not been taken earlier, it is evid...
M/S. Infrastructures Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
AP No.503 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction M/S.INFRASTRUCTURES Versus UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :17. h December, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The arbitration agreement has been found to be in order at the previous stage and the two objections raised by the respondent were repelled by the order dated January 4, 2012. The respondent says that Clause 25 of the general terms governing Central Public Works Department contracts stipulates that a named officer would appoint the arbitrator and if there is no appointment by the named officer, there would be no arbitration at all. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in view of such clause, the Chief Justice or his designate should allow the appointing authority to appoint the arbitrator. Though such objection had not been taken earlier, it is evident that the respondent is seeking to foist an arbitra...
Eastern Track Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
TA NO.156 OF 201.WITH T NO.187 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Eastern Track Udyog PVT.LTD.versus Union of India & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :17. h December, 2012. Mr.J.Ganguli, Mr.S.Ghosh, Mr.A.Chowdhury appear. Mr.L.K. ChatterjeeappeaRs.The Court : The facts of this case are more or less identical to TA No.82 of 2012 with CS No.263 of 2012 [Eastern Track Udyog PVT.LTD.versus Union of India & Ors.].where this Court had passed an interim order on 14th August, 2012 and to those in TA No.152 of 2012, T No.166 of 2012 [M/S.Kedsati Iron & Steel PVT.LTD.versus Union of India & Ors.].where this court had passed an interim order on 6th December, 2012. The prima facie case will appear from a part of the order dated 6th December, 2012 inserted below : I am of the prima facie view that once payment has been made for the supply, the railways have to proceed very cautiously to reopen the contract. There is no restraint ...
Suresh Kumar Banani and ors. Vs. Ramgopal Banani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
GA No.176 of 2012 GA No.2502 of 2012 CS No.321 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Suresh Kumar Banani & ORS.Versus Ramgopal Banani & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:17. h December 2012 Appearance: Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.D.Basak, Advocate Mr.J.Gharai, Advocate for the plaintiffs Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate for defendant No.1 Mr.Jishnu Choudhury, Advocate for defendant. No.25 It is submitted on behalf of Mr.Santosh Benani, the defendant No.25 that he is entirely dependent on the rental income for survival and for that he is in need of some funds to make payments for some medical expenses. It further appears that some more time is needed for compliance with the order dated 6th December 2012. I direct the parties and the Receiver to forthwith comply with this order. Furthermore, I direct the Receiver to make payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the funds collected to the defendant No.25, without prejudice to the rights and contentions ...
Modern Jute Machinery Company (P) Limited Vs. Raajan Textile Engineers ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
ORDER SHEET TA No.158 of 2012 T No.196 of 2012 GA No..of 2012 CS No..of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MODERN JUTE MACHINERY COMPANY (P) LIMITED Versus RAAJAN TEXTILE ENGINEERS & CONSULTAT & ORS.F.R.JUTE MILLS LTD..PROFORMA DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :17. h December, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Chanchal Dutta, Adv.Ms.Krishna Mallick, Adv.The Court :- The plaint in the above suit was presented and this interim application moved by learned Counsel for the plaintiff just before rising of the Court today, after having taken prior leave for this purpose in the morning. Great urgency was cited by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the urgency being that if payment under the subject letters of credit was not restrained the fiRs.defendant might obtain payment during the couRs.of this day. The prima facie case of the plaintiff is that they agreed defendant. to buy Payment three was items...
Himanka Kumar Paul Vs. Smt. Gita Devi Khemani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
GA No.2423 of 2012 CS No.199 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HIMANKA KUMAR PAUL Versus SMT. GITA DEVI KHEMANI & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :17. h December, 2012. Appearance: Mr.J.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Reetobrata Mitra, Adv.Mr.S.Choudhury, Adv.Mr.Souma Bhattacharya, Adv.The Court : The petitioner seeks review of an order dated June 14, 2011 from which he preferred an appeal but later withdrew the same. The petitioner says that the effect of the petitioner withdrawing the appeal is as if the petitioner had preferred no appeal; which is a condition precedent recognised in Section 114 of the Code for a petition for review to be maintained. In any event, the petitioner says that while withdrawing the appeal the petitioner obtained leave of the appellate Court to apply for review of the same order and suggests that, in such circumstances, the maintainability of the review petition can...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »