Kolkata Court March 2012 Judgments
Ram Chander Vs. Magma Fincorp Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.158 of 2012 GA No.159 of 2012 AP No.61 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL JURISDICTION RAM CHANDER Versus MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Soumya Roy, Adv.Mr.Shibaji Kr. Das, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv.Mr.K.K. Pandey, Adv.The Court : A suggested order signed by the petitioner and by advocates representing the petitioner and the fiRs.respondent has been handed over to Court. The petitioner is the hirer in the transaction, the fiRs.respondent the financier and the second respondent, who is neither present not represented, is the guarantor. The signed suggested order should be retained with the papeRs.At the suggestion of the parties, the following order is made: By consent of the parties, the award dated February 27, 2009 is set aside and the parties agree that a fresh reference of the disputes may be made...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corp, Wbrespond
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.175 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SWAPAN SENGUPTA Petitioner Versus THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORP, WB REGION & ANR. Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Probal Mukherjee, Advocate. Mr.Debanik Banerjee, Advocate. Mr.Rohit Basu, Advocate. for the petitioner Mr.Soumitra Banerjee, Advocate. for the respondent. The Court : The writ petitioner is a proprietary firm who has been directed to make payment of Rs.6,71,134/- to the Employees State Insurance Corporation on account of contribution, interest, penal rate of interest, damages and costs. Mr.Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in this computation, certain sum which has already been deposited has not been given credit to. In this writ petition, certain challans have been annexed showing deposit of certain sums of money. Since what is alleged in this writ petition is th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of West Bengal and anr. Vs. M/S. N.Bhakat and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
AP No.435 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. -VersusM/S.N.BHAKAT & Co.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 28, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv.Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Navojit Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : A seemingly irrelevant submission on behalf of the respondent contractor afforded the Court an opportunity for couRs.correction and appreciate that the quality and quantity of the evidence that was before the arbitrator and that may have satisfied the arbitrator may ordinarily not be gone into by a Court in proceedings for annulment of an arbitral award. The primary ground urged by the petitioner in the present petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is that the claim could not have been carried to the reference since the contractor had no claim at all and, upon payment of the contractors seventh RA and final bill on August 5...
Tag this Judgment!West Bengal and ors. Vs. Kuntal Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.218 of 2011 GA No.222 of 2011 APOT No.35 of 2011 With WP No.641 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, WEST BENGAL & ORS.Versus KUNTAL SARDAR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :28. h March, 2012. Mr.Saikat Banerjee, Mr.Josojeet Mukherjee for the appellants. Mr.Tapobroto Chakraborty, Mr.Goutam Dey, Mr.Kamal Mishra, Mr.Tamaltaru Panda, Mr.Abhijit Basu for respondent nos.1 to 5. The Court : This is an application for condonation of delay of 771 days. Mr.Saikat Banerjee, learned Counsel draws our attention to paragraphs 4 to 9 where according to him the causes were shown justifying the delay. The respondents in the appeal filed affidavit-in-opposition. The term used is utter negligence. which we feel absolutely a modest phraseology used in the present case. We prima facie feel that in case some one says that the delay was deliberate, such statem...
Tag this Judgment!Eih Ltd. Vs. Cit Kolkata Iii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.408 of 2005 EIH LTD.Versus CIT KOLKATA III BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :28. h March, 2012. This appeal has been admitted by an order of this Court dated 6th October, 2005 on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the supply of food and beverages to the international airlines in sealed containers constitutes export of goods out of India for the purposes of section 80HHC of the Act ?. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sale proceeds received for supply of such food and beverages was in convertible foreign exchange within the meaning of section 80HHC of the Act ?. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to the deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Act ?.. Mr.R.N. Bajoria, lear...
Tag this Judgment!L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Kalyan Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
AP No.518 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LTD.Versus KALYAN SEN & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :28. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.A.Mitra, Adv.Mr.S.N. Pandey, Adv.Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.The Court : The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit from which it is evident that a part of the 34th instalment that fell due on December 11, 2010 has not been paid and the 35th to 41st instalments payable between January and July, 2011 have not been paid. Such position is not disputed by the respondents. There is an award which has been passed in the petitioners favour. The award remains unchallenged. At the post-award stage, the respondents sought to make payments and the petitioner agreed to accept the payments by disregarding the award, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, and by treating the payments due under the agreement to be the amount owing from the respondents. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Embee Software Private Limited Vs. Samir Kumar Shaw and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
1. The Court: Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is involved in this case. It enacts that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void. We are not concerned with the exception clause in that section, save and except for the purpose of interpreting the main section. 2. The scope of the law on the subject has to be ascertained first before entering into the facts of this case. 3. In England this branch of law is part of their common law. The employer may provide, in the contract of employment, that after cessation of the relationship between the employer and employee, the latter may be restrained from carrying on or being employed in a similar type of business within a reasonable geographical limit or for a reasonable length of time, (see the case of T. Lucas and Co. Ltd. v. Mitchell reported in (1974) Ch 129, John Michael Design plc v. Cooke and another reported in (1987) 2 AER 332 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dunlop India Limited Vs. Madura Coats Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. Years of waiting to be paid its dues and the perceived daylight robbery in the company have prompted this petitioning-creditor to seek the immediate appointment of a provisional liquidator over the company even as the matter as to whether the company should be wound up is pending consideration. The petitioning-creditor asserts that if there is any modicum of corporate decency that the law in this country recognises and there is any meaning left to the principle of rule of law, there cannot be any second thoughts on its immediate prayer. The petitioning-creditor says that the conduct of those in management of the company makes a mockery of the process of law and exhorts the court to not merely sit by and endorse the alleged corrupt practices indulged in by the management. As in every case under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, the basis of the petitioning-creditor’s claim has first to be, prima facie, assessed and then the other grounds looked into. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lal Shaw Vs. Lilawati Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
AP No.243 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PREM LAL SHAW Versus LILAWATI DEVI & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :26. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Kumar Gupta, Adv.Mr.Ramesh Dhara, Adv.Mr.Joydeep Kar, Adv.The Court : The petitioner seeks to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the petitioner had merely sold his share in the assets and goodwill of the partnership firm to the respondents and had not agreed to the respondents continuing the business. The respondents suggest that the challenge is not maintainable since the petitioner has duly received the consideration without any reservation and is estopped from questioning the award. The primary grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents are seeking to continue the business of the firm in the name of the partnership firm despite the dissolution of the original partnershi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed HossaIn Mallick Vs. Kulbir Singh and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.646 OF 201.CS NO.94 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MOHAMMED HOSSAIN MALLICK Versus KULBIR SINGH AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :26. h March, 2012. Mr.A.Mitra, Mr.J.Chowdhuryappear. The Court : This is a trade-cum-copyright action. This interlocutory application is moved ex parte and allowed to be moved ex parte, considering the submissions made by Mr.Mitra, learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant is practising total deception. The plaintiff is, inter alia, the manufacturer of cakes. The defendant is also trying to sell the same article in packets. Mr.Mitra hands up the packaging material of the products of both the products. I am astonished to see how the packaging material, the artistic work and general look of the defendants packet is substantially similar, if not identical to the plaintiffs packet. Here, I must say that in the packaging material the plaintiff mentions its ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »