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.
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manas Ranjan Sahoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.1008 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus MANAS RANJAN SAHOO AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :6. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.Talukdar Sr.Adv.The Court: The respondents are represented and it does not appear that there is any willingness on the respondents part to make any payment. Since a sum in excess of Rs.10 lakh is said to be due in resect of the agreement between the parties, there will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Mr.Rahul Karmakar, Advocate, is appointed receiver to obtain possession of the hydraulic excavator. If, however, prior to the receiver taking possession of the excavator a sum of Rs.5 lakh is tendered by the respondents to the receiver or to the petitioner by way of a demand draft or pay order or like instrument made out in favour of the petitioner, and not by way of any personal ...
Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ranjan Sahoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.1010 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus SURESH RANJAN SAHOO & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :6. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.Talukdar Sr.Adv.The Court: The respondents are represented and it does not appear that there is any willingness on the respondents part to make any payment. Since a sum in excess of Rs.45 lakh is said to be due in resect of the agreement between the parties, there will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Mr.Rahul Karmakar, Advocate, is appointed receiver to obtain possession of the assets that form the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties. If, however, prior to the receiver taking possession of the excavator a sum of Rs.5 lakh is tendered by the respondents to the receiver or to the petitioner by way of a demand draft or pay order or like instrument made out in favo...
J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,centrali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.126 of 2004 J.K.INDUSTRIES LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-I BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :6. h March, 2012. This appeal was taken out against judgement and order of the Learned Tribunal in relation to assessment year 1997-98 and the same was admitted by judgment and order dated 28th February, 2005 on the following substantial question of law: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the foreign travel expenditure of the spouses of the appellants Managing Directors who accompanied her husband on business visits and its purported findings that the accompaniment of the spouses was not for business expediency/purpose of the business/direct or indirect benefit to the appellant and disallowing the expenditure of Rs.5,18,085/- are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?.. While hearing Mr.Khaitan and Mr.M...
Tramp Oil Schiffants, Und H.M and Co.K.G. Vs. Owners and Parties Inter ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Admiralty Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE A.S.No.2 of 1991 TRAMP OIL SCHIFFANTS, UND H.M & CO.K.G.Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN M.V.`T.R` A.S.No.3 of 1991 B. Ghose & Co.PVT.LTD.Versus Egyptian Navigation Co.A.S.No.2 of 1993 Dependable Industrial PVT.LTD.Versus The Owners & Parties interested in the Berge Pagah.A.S.No.2A of 1993 Union of India Versus Vessel Sanfoot II A.S.No.3A of 1993 EMEC PVT.LTD.Versus The Owners & Parties interest in vessel A.S.No.1 of 1994 Cheval International LTD.Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN M.V.`Gheorghieni` A.S.No.1A of 1996 M.M.T.C.Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN M.V.`Earnest Theemen` A.S.No.5 of 1996 M.J.Scrap (P) LTD.Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN M.V.`Pangia Tinou` A.S.No.1 of 1997 The Ocean Marin Protection & Indemnity Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN VESSEL `AL KA` A.S.No.2 of 1997 C.M.E.C.PVT.LTD.Versus OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN VESSEL `M.V.Galaxy-III` A.S.No.14 of 1997 RANA KRI...
Smt. Mani Roy (Das) Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
WP No.869 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Smt. Mani Roy (Das) Versus The State of West Bengal & Others Before: The Honble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya Date:6. h March 2012 Appearance: Mr.Saktipada Jana, Advocate Mr.Pranab Chatterjee, Advocate appear for the petitioner Mr.Asish Kr. Guha, Advocate Mr.Goutam Dutta, Advocate appear for the State The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to change the date of her option under ROPA Rules, 1990 from 1st January 1986 to 1st April 1989 with an undertaking to refund the payment to the government for such change in her option date in accordance with law. He has also prayed for other incidental orders in this writ petition. The State-respondents are contesting this writ petition by filing opposition wherein the pay scale which is admissible to the petitioner as per existing rules and...
Civtect (i) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
AP No.1037 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CIVTECT (I) PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :6. h March, 2012. Appearance: Mr.N.R. Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Jyotsna Roy Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : There is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the arbitration agreement which is contained in the General Conditions governing railway contracts. There is also no dispute that there are differences between the parties which are capable of resolution by arbitration. The value of the work is in excess of Rs.10 lakh and the parties agree that Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the general conditions governing railway contracts would apply in this case. By a letter dated May 25, 2011, the petitioners called upon the General Manager of Eastern Railway to take steps in accordance with the arbitration agreement. supplied a gist of the petitioners grievances. The petitioners There is no disagreement ...
Sumitra Das and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek to challenge the order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 26th May, 2011. The case of the Petitioners is that the teacher died on 2nd July, 2007 and his widow applied for compassionate appointment for her younger son, namely, the Petitioner No.2. As no step was taken by the Respondent No.4, W.P.No.31403 (W) of 2008 was filed and an order was passed on 18th June, 2009 whereby the Respondent No.4 was directed to take a reasoned decision while disposing of the Petitioners’ Application for compassionate appointment. On the basis of the said order passed the Respondent No.4 by communication dated 2nd September, 2010 requested the Respondent No.5 to send the proposal along with the necessary papers for appointment of the Petitioner No.2. As no steps was taken by the Respondent No.4, WP 21635 (W) of 2009 was filed in which an order was passed on 25th February, 2011 directing the Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the Application filed a...
Sagarika Pal (Ghosh) Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Biswanath Somadder, J. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ application it appears that the writ petitioner has essentially challenged an order dated March 12, 2010 passed by the Block Development Officer, Burwan, Murshidabad which appears to have been passed in favour of the private respondent no.9. It appears that the moot question, as sought to be raised by the writ petitioner, is with regard to her entitlement to get preference as a Self Help Group candidate, which according to the writ petitioner, has not been dealt with categorically. It has been, however, stated in the impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer that since several numbers of applicants from Self Help Groups had put in their applications, the Selection Committee found it difficult to prioritize candidates on the basis of their belonging to Self Help Groups. In such circumstances, the Selection Committee had dropped the idea and decided to go ahead on ...
Shyama Sharan Bhalotia and Others Vs. Fortune Enterprises Private Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Patherya J. This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejecting the plaint filed in C.S. 141 of 2009. The case of the defendant No. 1 is that in a suit for preparation of a scheme for administration of all the assets of the defendant No.1 and for management thereof, diverse reliefs have been sought. One of such relief is for an investigation into the dealings of all the assets and management of the defendant No.1. By virtue of an agreement dated 23rd September, 1998 between the defendant No. 2 and one Anil Kumar Mahensaria the said persons agreed to develop premises No. 6, Wood Street, Kolkata- 700 016 which belonged to the defendant No. 1 under a Lease Deed for 50 years. To the said agreement, the defendant No. 1 was not a party but the right of the defendant No. 1 in the said property was dealt with. From a reading of the agreement of September 1998 it will appear that its pith and substance is development of the only asset, i.e. the...
Shyama Sharan Bhalotia and Others Vs. Essem Enterprises Private Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Patherya J. This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejecting the plaint filed in C.S. 140 of 2009. The case of the defendant No. 1 is that in a suit for preparation of a scheme for administration of all the assets of the defendant No.1 and for management thereof, diverse reliefs have been sought. One of such relief is for an investigation into the dealings of all the assets and management of the defendant No.1. By virtue of an agreement dated 23rd September, 1998 between themselves, the plaintiff No. 2, the defendant No. 2 and one Anil Kumar Mahensaria agreed to develop premises No. 6, Wood Street, Kolkata- 700 016 which belonged to the defendant No. 1 under a Lease Deed for 50 years. To the said agreement, the defendant No. 1 was not a party but the right of the defendant No. 1 in the said property was dealt with. From a reading of the agreement of September 1998 it will appear that its pith and substance is development of the only...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »