Kolkata Court February 2012 Judgments
Madvai Ahluwalia Vs. Vimal Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
I.P. MUKERJI, J. FACTS: One was an execution application. The other was an application by some of the parties therein, being the respondent nos. 2(a) (b) (c) and (d) for dismissal of that application. They were supported by the other appearing respondents. All describe themselves as decree-holders. The history or the merits of the matter are not very important. But some facts may be noted in passing. On 28th June, 1975, two families, the Guptas and the Sharmas entered into an agreement for many purposes. Those purposes are not important at all at this stage. The agreement had an arbitration clause. An arbitrator was appointed who made his award on 29th June, 1996. Some members of the Gupta family challenged this award. On 5th June, 1978, the award was set aside by this court. An appeal was preferred before its division bench. On 1st August, 1997 the order of the learned trial judge was affirmed by the bench. The matter did not rest there. It was carried in appeal to the Hon’ble S...
Tag this Judgment!Mithu Mondal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. As similar questions of law and fact are involved in these applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by consent of the parties, we take up all the three applications for hearing analogously. The short question involved in these applications is whether the Chairman or any other member of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal could exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority of the tribunal sitting singly. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal was constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides for composition of tribunals and benches thereof. Under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, each tribunal shall consist of a chairman and such number of judicial and administrative members, as the appropriate Government may deem fit and, subject to other provisions of the said Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal may be exercised by benches th...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushik Pahari Vs. Ad Hoc President, District Primary School Board and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an appeal against order No. 83 dated June 23, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Contai, district- Purba Medinipore in Title Suit No. 79 of 2007. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge partially modified the interim order of status quo, passed in connection with an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff in the said suit, dated September 13, 2002, by permitting the defendant No. 6 to make construction of the school building and kitchen-cum-store as per the government sanctioned plan. The application for temporary injunction is, still, pending before the learned trial judge. The suit, inter alia, for partition and permanent injunction was instituted in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Contai, district-Purba Medinipore. The suit was registered as Title Suit No. 202 of 2002. Eventually, the said suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil J...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ali Reza and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. The petitioners are elected members of Rudranagar Gram Panchayat situated in the district of Birbhum. On 7th December, 2011, the petitioners served a notice as per provision of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), for holding a meeting for removal of the present Pradhan of their Gram Panchayat. The Prescribed Authority, being the Block Development Officer, Murarai-II Development Block, by a memo dated 8th December, 2011, intimated the writ petitioners that no meeting for removal of the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat could be held upto 22nd March, 2012, since a meeting convened in respect of a no-confidence motion for removal of present Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was earlier held on 22nd March, 2011, and by virtue of sub-section (11) of section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (as amended up-to-date), no notice of any subsequent motion for removal of the same office bearer can be taken into cognizance within a period of one y...
Tag this Judgment!Tantia Constructions Limited Vs. Unknown
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1 C.P. No. 366 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of: TANTIA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED -And- ROAD BUILDIER (M) SDN BHD .....PetitionerFor the Petitioning Creditor : Mr. Mainak Bose, Advocate with Mr. U.S. Menon, Mr. Saunak Sengupta, Mr. S. Sultana, AdvocatesFor the Company : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Advocate with Mr. Saikat Sen, Ms. Ipsita Banerjee, Mr. S. Sengupta, AdvocatesHeard on : 13.02.2012Judgment on : 22nd February, 2012I.P. MUKERJI, J.This is an application for the winding up of Tantia Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter "the company"). It is made by a Malaysian company by the name of Road Builder (M) Sdn Bhd, (hereinafter "the petitioning creditor"). 2These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed, on 15th December, 2007, to sell to the company plan...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. West Bengal Financial
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDEIntheHighCourtatCalcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) Original Side G.A. No. 2652 of 2011 W.P. No. 1138 of 2010 UCO Bank Vs West Bengal Financial Corporation and; Ors. CORAM : The Hon'ble Justice Tapen SenFor the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Soumen Das, AdvocateFor the Respondent: Mr. A. K. Dhandhania, Advocate Mr. Rudra Shankar De, AdvocateFor the Private : Mr. Saptangsu Basu, AdvocateRespondent Mr. Debangsu Basak, Advocate Mr. Soumen Datta, Advocate Mr. Sailesh Gupta, AdvocateHeard on : 1.11.2011; 22.11.2011; 29.11.2011; 14.12.2011 and; 5.1.2012.C.A.V. on : 5.1.2012.Judgment delivered on : 22.2.2012.Tapen Sen, J. : In this Writ Petition filed by the UCO Bank, prayer, inter alia, is not to give effect to the sale of the property to the second highest bidder in terms of the impugned letters dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-13) and 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-15). The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the said lett...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. West Bengal Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE IntheHighCourtatCalcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) Original Side G.A. No.2652 of 2011 W.P. No.1138 of 2010 UCO Bank Vs West Bengal Financial Corporation & Ors. CORAM : The Honble Justice Tapen Sen For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Soumen Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. A. K. Dhandhania, Advocate Mr. Rudra Shankar De, Advocate For the Private Respondent : Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Advocate Mr. Debangsu Basak, Advocate Mr. Soumen Datta, Advocate Mr. Sailesh Gupta, Advocate Heard on :1. 11.2011; 22.11.2011; 29.11.2011; 14.12.2011 & 5.1.2012. C.A.V. on :5. 1.2012. Judgment delivered on :22. 2.2012. Tapen Sen, J.: In this Writ Petition filed by the UCO Bank, prayer, inter alia, is not to give effect to the sale of the property to the second highest bidder in terms of the impugned letters dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-13) and 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-15). The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the said letter...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Enterprises and anr. Vs. Siddhi Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 22.02.2012 APOT 8 of 2012 GA 46.of 2012 CS 13.of 2010 Sunrise Enterprises & Anr. versus Siddhi Vinayak Industries PVT.LTD.& ORS.Mr.Ajoy Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate for the appellants Mr.K.Thakkar, Advocate for the respondents The Court :- There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. By consent of the parties this application is treated as days list as Application New.While considering the grant of interim relief Mr.Chatterjee submits that the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order has virtually passed a decree at the ad interim stage even no prayer was made which is the basic foundation of the rules of this Court. Moreover, suit in connection with which the impugned order was passed has been challenged by filing an application for rejection of plaint and that is yet to be heard out. Mr.Chatterjee submits that his ...
Tag this Judgment!Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Mekail Islam and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT No.81 of 2012 GA No.572 of 2012 AP No.81 of 2012 HINDUJ.LEYLAND FINANCE LTD.Versus MEKAIL ISLAM & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :22. d February, 2012. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. Mr.Ganguly appears on behalf of the respondent-hirer and waives service of notice of appeal. Dispensing with all formalities, we dispose of the appeal treating the same as on days list by the following order: This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2012 passed on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the judgment and order impugned the learned Trial Judge passed an order of injunction restraining the appellant before us from dealing with or disposing of or alienating or encumbering the vehicle bearing registration no.WB41C0568 or any part thereof in a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Incometax, Centraliii, Kolkata Vs. Aditya Translink (P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 22.02.2012 ITA 36.of 2009 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-III, Kolkata versus Aditya Translink (P) LTD.The Court :- We have taken up this matter for hearing of admission of the appeal. This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 12th June, 2009 in relation to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The grounds on which the appeal is sought to be preferred are as follows :a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleting the addition of rs.16,34,152/- on the basis of statement recorded at the time of search operation ?. b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law restoring the matter back to the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »