Kolkata Court March 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.
Viability Study (Te Vs. ) Report by Tata Economic Consultancy Services
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CA No.34 of 2012 CP No.13 of 2009 IN THE MATTER OF: DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND MADURA COATS LIMITED For the Petitioning-Creditor: Mr Ravi Kapur, Adv., Ms Manju Bhuteria, Adv., Mr R. Medora, Adv., Mr M. Mukherjee, Adv., Mr Arijit Law, Adv., Mr B.M.Sharma, Adv.For the Company: Mr Utpal Bose, Adv., Mr D.N.Sharma, Adv., Mr A. Chowdhury, Adv., Ms Debjani Chatterjee, Adv.Hearing concluded on: March 20, 2012. BEFORE The Honble Justice SANJIB BANERJEE Date: March 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 p...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
CA No.248 of 2012 CP No.152 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: S.P.AGARWALA & Co.PVT.LTD.-AndMAHABIR PRASAD GUPTA Appearance: Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Adv.Mr.Sunil Singhania, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :March 26, 2012. The Court : This is an application for recalling an order of admission of the creditors winding-up petition that was made when the company was not represented. Since sufficient grounds have been made as to why the company was not represented on February 6, 2012 when the petition was admitted and the company has offered to put in the principal sum adjudged by such order of Rs.1,81,873/- with Advocate representing the company, the order of admission may be recalled. There will be an unconditional stay of operation of the order dated February 6, 2012 for a fortnight from date. If, within such time, the company deposits a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with Advocate representing the company upon notic...
M/S. Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.460 OF 201.ITAT NO.43 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income-tax].ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - IV, KOLKATA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :26. h March, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Farrokh V. Irani, Adv., Mr.A.K.Dey, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.S.B.Saraf, Adv., for the respondent. The Court : This is an application for interim relief. Upon hearing Mr.Irani and Mr.Saraf, who does not want to file any affidavit-in-opposition, we pass the following order. Hearing of the appeal has already been expedited by an order dated 5th March, 2012. Mr.Saraf waives the service of notice of appeal. The matter will be taken up for hearing. Liberty to mention for enlistment for hearing the moment paper book is filed. It appears that the appeal has been admitted in relation to the assessment year 2003-04. Mr.Irani submits that following the erroneous ...
In the Matter of : Dipak Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
This application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. has been taken out by Dipak Das, who have been arrested in connection with Bizpur Police Station Case No.208 dated 5.6.2011 under Section 368 of the I.P.C. Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal/opposite party. Perused the C.D. The factual background of the case appears to be a peculiar one. The wife who lodged the case under Section 498A I.P.C. and other Sections against the present petitioner/accused was kidnapped by the present petitioner/accused and he kept her near Bangladesh border in isolation so that she may not get any opportunity to come and depose in the case initiated by her. In doing so, he committed the offence under Section 368 of the I.P.C. Once this petitioner was granted bail. For some reasons, the bail so granted to him was cancelled. Thereafter, he surrendered in Court on 13.12.2011 and since...
Uco Bank Vs. West Bengal Financial Corporation and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
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 letters dated 4.8.2010 and 19.8.2010. They have also made a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the joint sale of the entire property comprising of 6.07 acres of land (i.e. 3.46 Acres of the mortgaged property PLUS 2.59 Acres held by the Petitioners by way of equitable mortgage). 2. The facts of this case, as would appear from the pleadings, is that in the year 1986, the West Bengal State Financial Corporation (Respondent no. 1) had provided financial assistance to the Respondent No. 2 (Biswamata Cold Storage (P) Ltd.) by granting a loan of Rs. 60 lacs. In order to take the loan, the Managing Director of the said Respondent no. 2 deposited the Title Deeds in respe...
Coal India Limited Versu Anadian Commercial Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
ANJIB BANERJEE, J. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent, a commercial arm of the Canadian government, as to the authority of any Indian court to receive a challenge to an arbitral award passed in a reference conducted beyond the territorial limits of this country, brings to the fore a vexed issue that appears to have been variously answered by courts in the country. For the purpose of the point of demurer it is only necessary to recognize some admitted facts. The parties entered into an agreement sometime in the year 1989 for the respondent to set up a coal extracting facility for the petitioner in the Rajmahal area in the state of Jharkhand. The parties are agreed that the agreement was to be governed by the laws in force in India; that the dispute-resolution mechanism envisaged thereunder was of arbitration; and, that the arbitration was to take place under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) with the place of the arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland....
Jagadish Singh Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
The writ petition being W.P. No. 461 of 2010 which was filed by the writ petitioner, was disposed of by this Court ex-parte on 11th January, 2011 by quashing the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Barrackpore, on 31stJanuary, 2008 being Annexure “P/7” to the writ petition. By the said order, the said District Inspector of Schools was directed to rectify the erroneous entries regarding the date of appointment of the petitioner in the said school, recorded in the Memo dated 23rdOctober, 2002 whereby the list of approved and bonafide teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school was forwarded by the concerned District Inspector of Schools to the Administrator of the said school. By the said order the concerned District Inspector of Schools was also directed to update his records including the approval letter dated 2nd January, 2007 being Annexure “P/5” to this writ petition appearing at page 17 thereof. The said District I...
K. Umar Vs. the Manager, Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Dipankar Datta, J. 1. The appellant is an employee of Syndicate Bank (hereinafter the bank). He was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings vide order dated October 27, 2009. Thereafter, he was proceeded against departmentally by the bank. A chargesheet was issued against him on November 18, 2009 by the Deputy General Manager and disciplinary authority, the respondent no.3. It was alleged therein that while the appellant was on leave on sick ground, he went to the PBMC Branch of the bank at Port Blair on September 23, 2009 during business hours and demanded the branch attendance register to be shown to him without any authority. He had questioned the authority of Shri Ramit Sengupta, Probationary Assistant Manager to mark one Smt. Nadira, clerk of the PBMC Branch of the bank, absent on September 22, 2009 in the said register, although she remained absent without sanction of leave. It was further alleged that he had entered into an unwarranted argument with ...
Joygopal Mondal and Others Vs. Pratima Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.19 dated April 20, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat in G.R. Case No.154 of 2010 arising out of Rampurhat PS Case No.35 dated February 19, 2010 under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for return of the seized vehicle. Upon perusal of the materials on record and on hearing both the sides, I find that two rival claims were made for return of the vehicle. The defacto complainant filed an application for release of the seized vehicle in her custody and the accused no.1 / petitioner herein also prayed for return of the vehicle in his favour. While disposing of the two applications, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the prayer of the defacto complainant and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such order, this revisional application has been preferred. The defacto complainant filed a criminal case under S...
Dipak Kumar Himatsingka Vs. Jyotsana Rajgarhia and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 10th October, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge revoking a grant of Probate issued by the Court on 10th February, 1987. The said order was passed on an application filed by the respondent No. 1 Jyotsana Rajgarhia. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: On 28th December, 1973 one Anirudha Kr. Himatsingka published a Will bequeathing his all property to his wife Usha Himatsingka. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad Himatsingka was appointed as an Executor under the said Will. On 13th April, 1974 Anirudha Kr. Himatsingka died leaving behind his two daughters namely Anita and Jyotsana and the widow Usha Himatsingka. On 17th September, 1981 he said Usha Himatsingka published her last Will. The said Will was witnessed and attested by her daughter, Anita Fatehpuria and Shyama Poddar, Advocate.On 3rd October, 1981 Usha Himatsingka, died. Usha, by her said Will bequeathed all her properties in favour of Dipak Ku...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »