Kolkata Court March 2012 Judgments
Piyush Periwal and ors. Vs. Basudeo Khaitan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.649 of 2012 with APD No.98 of 2008 CS No.243 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction PIYUSH PERIWAL & ORS.Versus BASUDEO KHAITAN & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :28. h March, 2012. Mr.Abhijit Sarkar, Mr.Supratim Laha for the appellants. Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Mr.A.P.Agarwala for the respondents. The Court : By the order dated January 18, 2012 we directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.53 lakhs in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondents. We made it clear that the said amount must be paid within six weeks from the said date and upon such payment being made the suit pending between the parties would stand disposed of. We also made it clear that in default of payment of the said sum the application would stand dismissed. As per the calculation the money was to be paid on or before February 28, 2012. Admittedly the...
Tag this Judgment!... Mother/Petitioner Vs. Anindlya Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ALP.ITL No.1 of 2012 In the High Court at Calcutta Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction In the matter of Suvamitra Banerjee ..Mother/Petitioner Versus Anindlya Banerjee ..Father/Respondent Before : The Honble Justice I.P.Mukerji Date :28. 3.2012 The Court: This is an application by the divorced mother under clause 17 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The parties hereto have mutually agreed and preferred this application inter alia praying for A contact order in terms of the Judgment and order dated September 30, 2011, passed on consent of parties by His Honour, Judge Lancaster, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in BCPI0P00708 [Anindya Banerjee]., In the Matter of The Children Act, 1989 and in the Matter of Megha Banerjee Date of Birth February 21, 2001 which provided for both the custody of the minot infant as also taking her out of the jurisdiction for the purposes of permanent relocation to Kolkata by th...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanathji Oil Mill and ors. Vs. Idbi Bank Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.259 OF 201.WITH CS No.254 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BISWANATHJ.OIL MILL & ORS.Versus IDBI BANK LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :28. h March, 2012. Mr.P.Chatterje, Sr.Advocate Mr.Arjak Dutta, Advocate Mr.Rizu Ghosal, Advocate .for petitioners Mr.Siddherto Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Victor Dutta, Advocate ..for respondent. The Court :- Very fundamental objections have been taken to my entertaining this application. FiRs.of all the defendant bank has taken steps against the plaintiff Financial under Assets 2002(Sarfaesi).and Under the Securitisation Enforcement that Act of notice and Reconstruction Security under Interest Section 13(2) of Act, was issued. The objection of the plaintiff has been rejected. Furthermore, the defendant bank has filed an application against the plaintiff under the recovery of debts due to banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. It is submitted on behalf of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. Mr. P Balu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET EC No.207 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus Mr.P BALU & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Sutopa Sanyal, Adv.Ms.Sushma Giri, Adv.The Court: This is a most unfortunate state of affaiRs.The Receiver could not come to Court. He handed over the four offers he had received to the petitioner to be placed before the Court. This is not our practice at all. He should have requested some learned Advocate to represent this fact before this Court, on his behalf. But the petitioner has urgency in the matter and it is equally not proper to keep on adjourning matters because of these reasons. Ms.Sanyal tells me that these four offers were received after the Receiver informed the judgment-debtors the terms of my earlier order. Considering the above I grant leave to the Receiver to accept the offer of Mr.C Duraisamy for Rs.19,03,000/-. The ba...
Tag this Judgment!Probir Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Xxxii,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.829 of 2012 ITAT No.54 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PROBIR ROY Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, XXXII, KOLKATA-XVII BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :28. h March, 2012. Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.for the appellant Md.Nizamuddin, Adv.for the department The Court : After hearing Mr.Khaitan and going through the impugned judgment and order, we admit this appeal on the following substantial question of law : (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in upholding the addition of Rs.14,49,739/- made by the Assessing Officer as suppressed sales in respect of recharge vouchers provided by the appellant free to the buyers of mobile phone handsets as a sales promotion measure and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perveRs.?.. After hearing Mr.Khaitan and Mr.Nizamuddin and...
Tag this Judgment!Bothra Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rock N Roll Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET APOT No.137 of 2012 ACO No.54 of 2012 CP No.502 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BOTHRA AUTOMOTIVES PVT.LTD.Versus ROCK N ROLL HOSPITALITY PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :28. h March, 2012. Ms.Manju Agarwal, Adv.for the appellant Mr.Reetobrata Mitra, Mr.Sourav Ghosh, Mr.Samrat Sengupta, Adversus for the respondent The Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a).While considering the prayer for grant of interim relief we have heard Ms.Manju Agarwal and Mr.Reetobrata Mitra. After having heard and going through the impugned judgment and order, unconditional stay of the impugned judgment and order cannot be granted. We notice prima facie that the impugned order has been passed in view of the admitted default in furnishing the bank guarantee. However the order directing to furnish bank guarantee is appealed against and that appeal is pending for hearing. But there has...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.R
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.194 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Mampi Paul Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :28. h March, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Saibal Achajya, Mr.Mithun Mukherjee, Advocates For Respondent Nos.3&4: Mr.Rezaul Hossain, Advocate For State Respondents: Mr.Arup Kumar Nag, Mr.Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Advocates The Court : Having considered the respective submissions, the petitioner claims to have been engaged as `Samprasarika by the school authorities of Barabar Ashanur Ms.with effect from December 24, 2009 in English subject. The representation was made by the petitioner for approval of his appointment but the said representation has not been considered and disposed of by the concerned authority. The concerned authorities cannot keep the representation in suspended animation indefinitely and should have taken prompt decision. It is informed to the Court that...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Jaiswal Vs. Masand Agritech and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.364 OF 201.CS NO.46 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GOPAL JAISWAL Versus MASAND AGRITECH & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :28. h March, 2012. Mr.P.Chatterjee, senior advocate, Mr.S.Roy Chowdhury, Mr.S.Singhaniaappear Mr.S.Bose, Mr.A.Chandraappear. The Court : This is an interim application in aid of a suit complaining of passing off. Both the plaintiff and the defendants are manufacturers of sprayers used by farmers to spray fertilizers in the field. They are called knapsack sprayeRs.It has a tube attached to it through which liquid fertilizer is sprinkled on the field. The plaintiff says that the defendants are passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Two boxes, one of the plaintiffs product and the other of the defendants product were displayed in Court. The colour combinations in the two boxes are different. But the display of colour, the depiction of the appliance on the box itself ...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
CA No.243 of 2012 CP No.303 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF : M/S PRINTERS TRADERS PVT LTD -ANDIN THE MATTER OF : HDFC BANK LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Arif Ali, Adv.Mr.Saurav Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : This is an application seeking leave to advertise the winding-up petition. By an order dated January 10, 2011 the Court found that the company was liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- to the petitioningcreditor with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from March 23, 2010 till the date of the order and further interest on the principal sum and interest from the date of the order at the rate of 12 per cent till payment on reducing balance basis. The company was permitted to pay off the amount in six equal monthly instalments beginning February, 2011 and payable by the seventh day of each relevant month. In default of payment by the company, the petitioning-creditor was gi...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Binayak Vs. Boc India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.384 of 2012 CS No.355 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KARAN SINGH BINAYAK Versus BOC INDIA LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate The Court: This is an application filed by the defendant for an extension of time to file their written statement. The suit is of 2000. The time stipulated in the writ of summons to file the written statement expired years ago. But the defendant had made an application under Order VII Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure. They say that because of pendency of this application they did not file the written statement not took any steps for extension of time to file it. Be that as it may, this Order VII Rule II application was ultimately disposed of by a Division Bench of our Court on 9th December, 2011, when time was given to the defendant to file their written statement within two weeks ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »