Kolkata Court February 2012 Judgments
Ltd.), 5. 48 Company Cases Page 604 Vs. Raj Kumar Mittal),
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PRESENT Hon'ble Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari C.P. NO. 78 OF 2010 In the matter of: THE STATESMAN LIMITED AND PAPER TRADE and; INDUSTRIES Pvt. Ltd. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rudradeb Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Deepnath Roychoudhury, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S. B. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. R. Saha, Adv. Heard on : 23.06.2011, 29.06.2011, 08.07.2011, 22.07.2011, 26.07.2011, 02.08.2011, 19.08.2011, 26.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 05.09.2011, 09.09.2011, 14.09.2011, 15.09.2011, 19.09.2011, 21.09.2011, 17.11.2011, 22.11.2011. Judgment on : 08.02.2012. ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. :- This winding up application is coming up for admission. The petitioner has a letter of credit limit from its bankers and establishes of credit on behalf of its customers or otherwise arrange finance when the customer do not have means to make immediate payment for goods to be purchased by them. Petitioner also stores and handles newsprint for its customers. Being ap...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas WP No.99 of 2012 Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State Of West Bengal & ORS.Mr.Arunava Ghosh and Mr.Soumya Majumdar, advocates, for the petitioneRs.Mr.A.Mazumdar and Mr.T.M.Siddiqui, advocates, for the respondents. Heard on: February 8, 2012. Judgement on: February 8, 2012. The Court:-The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 6, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to immediately initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent no.3 on the basis of your petitioners complaints dated 19th January, 2012 and 30th January, 2012, and if necessary to place the respondent no.3 under suspension for the said purpose. The respondent no.3 referred to in prayer(a) is Baidyanath Saha, presently working as...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Kanoi and anr. Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IC No.2 of 2011 RAMESH KUMAR KANo.& ANR. Versus M/S.SUDARSHAN STEEL ROLLING MILLS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date:8. h February, 2012 Appearance Mr.Saunak Sengupta, Adv.Mr.Rupak Ghosh, Adv.An arguable defence is made out as to whether the claim is barred by the laws of limitation. The petitioning creditor says that a temporary accommodation of Rs.10 lakh was made available to the alleged debtor bearing interest at 18% p.a.and repayable by March 31, 2006. The petitioner says that a promissory note was executed on April 16, 2001 simultaneously with the loan being availed of by the alleged debtor. The petitioner issued a notice on April, 2006 asserting the transaction. By letter of May 10, 2006, the alleged debtor denied the claim made on behalf of the petitioner and categorically denied any agreement for payment of interest. The alleged debtor, however, said that the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Incometax, Kolkatai Vs. Marshal Sons and Co. (i) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Wealth Tax) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 08.02.2012 AWT 1 of 2005 Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-I versus Marshal Sons & Co.(I) LTD.The Court :- In terms of our order dated lst February, 2012 duplicate copy of the memorandum of appeal has been filed in Court and the same is kept on record. Department is directed to act in terms of the order dated lst February, 2012. However, this shall be treated as original until the original paper filed earlier is traced. We direct the department to go on searching and trace the file and once it is done the duplicate copy shall be returned . For the time being this Court will proceed with the duplicate copy of the memorandum of appeal. This is an old matter of 2005. This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 7th October, 2004 in relation to Assessment Year 1997-98 on the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Company Vs. Madhu Woolen Industries Private Ltd.),
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PRESENT Honble Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari C.P.No.135 OF 201.In the matter of: CHOWRINGHEE PRAKASHAN PRIVATE LIMITED AND BEGWANI TRADE AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED For the Petitioner : Mr.Rudradeb Choudhury, Adv.Mr.Deepnath Roychoudhury, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.S.B. Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.S.R. Saha, Adv.Heard on :23. 06.2011, 29.06.2011, 08.07.2011, 22.07.2011, 26.07.2011, 02.08.2011, 19.08.2011, 26.08.2011, 30.08.2011, 05.09.2011, 09.09.2011, 14.09.2011, 15.09.2011, 19.09.2011, 21.09.2011, 17.11.2011, 22.11.2011. Judgment on :08. 02.2012. ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. :- This winding up application is coming up for admission. The petitioner has a letter of credit limit from its bankers and establishes of credit on behalf of its customers or otherwise arrange finance when the customer do not have means to make immediate payment for goods to be purchased by them. Petitioner also stores and handles newsprint for its customeRs.B...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Chur Mukherjee Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.353 OF 200.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction CHANDRA CHUR MUKHERJEE Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h February, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Reetabroto Mitra, Adv.Mr.Prithwiraj Sinha, Adv.Mr.Indranil Karfa, Adv.Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.The Court : Though how a petition has been intituled is of no ultimate relevance, it must be noticed at the outset that the petitioner herein has only invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in carrying the present request to Court. The two principal prayers in the petition are as follows: (a) A fit and proper person be appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences as stated in the petition hereinbefore; (b) The respondent and/or its men, servants, agents and/or assigns be restrained from giving any effect to and/or further affect to the letter dated 5th July, 2006 issued by Mr.Amit Kumar Basu as the alleged arbitrat...
Tag this Judgment!Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. Vs. Tivoli Park Apartment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
ORDER SHEET TA NO.7 OF 201.GA NO.344 OF 201.CS NO.15 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction PANTALOON RETAIL (INDIA) LTD.Versus TIVOLI PARK APARTMENT PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :8. h February, 2012. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.S.B.Mookerji, Sr.Adv., Mr.S.N.Mookerji, Sr.Adv., Mr.D.Dutta, Adv., Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Adv.Mrs.V.Bhatia, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.A.K.Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv., Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Adv., Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Adv., Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr.S.Sengupta, Adv.The Court : There is a very valuable property at or near the junction of AJ.Bose Road and Ballygunge Circular Road, being premises No.225B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata. The defendant is the owner of that property. On 21st December, 2006 they entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff which was described as a Memorandum of Understanding.I will describe the terms of this arrangement as simply a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Oxford Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Central Excise) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 08.02.2012 CEXA 1 of 2012 GA 11.of 2012 M/S.Oxford Processors PVT.LTD.versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia, Commissionerate The Court :- Mr.Maity appears on behalf of the respondent. A copy of the application together with memorandum of appeal is supplied to him in Court. We admit the appeal upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant on the following substantial question of law :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified in setting aside the Order of the Commissioner (Appeal) and restoring the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and allowing the Appeal filed by the Revenue by a not speaking order without considering the finding of the commissioner (appeal) that there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods and more particularly when such finding is bas...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Narinder Kumar Chadha Vs. Commissioner of Incometax, Kolkata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 08.02.2012 ITAT 8 of 2012 GA 9.of 2012 Sr.Narinder Kumar Chadha versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata The Court :- Upon hearing Mr.Mitra and going through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and also previous judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated lst April, 2012 we are of the view that this is a fit case for admission of the appeal on the following substantial question of law Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the miscellaneous application after having granted leave in the order dated lst April, 2010 ?.. Let a copy of the application together with the memorandum of appeal be served upon MRS.Smita Sinha (Das De) who appeared on 25th January, 2012 on behalf of the Revenue. Smt. Sinha appearing for he respondent waives servi...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Kar Vs. Sushila Bala Kar (Since Dec.) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
G.A.No.3285 of 2011 C.S.No.449 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SISIR KUMAR KAR Versus SUSHILA BALA KAR (SINCE DEC.) & ORS.Appearance Mr.Hirak Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.P.Nath, Advocate Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Sukrit Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Papia Mullick, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h February, 2012. The Court : The Boral Union Cooperative Bank today has produced particulars of certain accounts of Juthika Kar and Sandhya Kar as at February 3, 2012, certified by the Chief Executive Officer of the bank without furnishing the statements of accounts relating thereto. The statement furnished today covers twelve items with a repetition of serial No.11. The second item under serial No.11 appears to be a savings bank account of which no statement of accounts has been produced despite the order dated July 18, 2011 passed on a previous application and the Boral Banks representation as recorded in the order dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »