Kolkata Court May 2012 Judgments
Coal India Ltd. Vs. Canadian Commercial Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 16.05.2012 APOT 26 of 2012 GA 133.of 2012 AP 17.of 2002 Coal India LTD.versus Canadian Commercial Corporation Mr.A.K.Mitra, learned Advocate General with Mr.Anirban Roy, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr.Advocate for the respondent. The Court :- There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. By consent of the parties the matter is treated as on days list as Application Adjourned. Having regard to the nature of the matter we think that hearing of the appeal should be expedited. Mr.Bose appearing for the respondent has also helped us to take a decision for expeditious hearing of the appeal. He waives service of notice of appeal. Therefore informal paper books shall be filed within two weeks after the summer vacation without fail enclosing all the papers used before the learned Trial Judge. An index shall...
Tag this Judgment!Re: Qualcast India Vs. Wesman Engineering Company Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ACO No.113 of 2012 APO No.90 of 2010 CP No.445 of 2009 RE: QUALCAST INDIA Versus WESMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h May, 2012. The Court : This is an application for extension of time to furnish security in terms of our judgment and order dated 30th September, 2011. Security could not be furnished by the petitioner as the judgment and order of this Court was taken to the Apex Court, and they were waiting for the result of the proceedings before the apex Court. Having found unsuccessful, they have approached this Court for extension of time to furnish security. It appears that the apex Court has been pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition summarily without at all touching the merit of the judgment. Under these circumstances, considering the aforesaid fact, we grant extension of time t...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.Responden
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.1251 of 2012 W.P.No.549 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KRISHNA KUKMAR RUNGTA & ANR. Versus Petitioner RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :16. h May, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Kallol Basu, Adv.For Respondent : Mr.Jishnu Saha with Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adversus Mr.Basu, learned Counsel appearing in support of the respondents, submits that the concerned bank authorities could not comply with the order for some difficulty on their part. There are several parties who could not be served in time and that is the reason for such delay. However, Mr.Basu prays for time to conclude the hearing. Mr.Basu, also prays for modification of the last portion of the order wherein it was made clear by this Court that in the event the respondent authorities do not decide the case within the specified time, it would be presumed that the name of the writ petitioner is remove...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. Panna Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
AP No.220 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PANNA SARKAR & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h May, 2012. Appearance: Mr.A.Mitra, Adv.Mr.Dipankar Dhar, Adv.The Court : This is a post-award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award having been passed on January 2, 2012. The respondents are represented and insist that the respondents have not been served the award by the arbitrator, though, in couRs.of the present proceedings, the respondents have been served copies of the award by the petitioning financier. Pursuant to orders passed on a previous petition under Section 9 of the Act, the Receiver appointed therein took possession of the excavator that formed the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties. The present petition is for the sale of the excavator. The Receiver has received a best offer of Rs.12 lakh for ...
Tag this Judgment!Larica Inn Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.1266 of 2012 APOT No.255 of 2012 WP No.880 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LARICA INN PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRATAP KUMAR RAY The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBAL BAIDYA Date :16. h May, 2012. Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Kishore Dutta, Adv.Mr.Nirmalya Biswas, Adv.for the appellant/petitioner Mr.Sandip Kumar De, Mr.Debangshu Mondal, Adversus for K.M.C.Mr.Anandya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Dipankar Halder, Adv.for respondent Nos.4 & 6 Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv.Mr.Kalyan Bandhopadhyay,Sr.Adv.Mr.Santanu Mitra, Adv.for respondent No.5 The Court : Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Raising grievance that construction of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 on the roof of the concerned premises wherein the writ petitioners acquired 50% roof right by proper instrument was illegal even if there is sanction plan granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1616 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE Tapan Kumar Dutta Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :16. h May , 2012. Appearance: Mr.Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.Mr.Pingal Bhattacharjee, Adv.Mr.B.Bhattacharjee,Adv.Mr.Tapash Hazra, Adv.The Court: The writ petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that the order passed by the District Judge, Purba Medinipur, dated July 7, 2009 is not being implemented by the respondent No.6, being the Principal Accountant General. Mr.Saha Roy in support of the writ petitioner submits that although the writ petitioner was appointed on January 24, 1975 but his initial date of appointment was not considered for determining his retiral dues. Mr.Saha Roy further submitted that his client moved the writ petition, being WP No.16425(W) of 2006, and the said writ petition was dismissed by and under a judgement and order dated April 16, 2008. The writ petitioner moved a re...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gouri Sirkar and ors. Vs. Mani Bhushan Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.1081 OF 201.CS NO.2706 OF 195.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. GOURI SIRKAR & ORS.Versus MANI BHUSHAN SIRKAR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :16. h May, 2012. Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Mr.A.Chowdhury, Sr.Mr.A.K.Banerjee, Sr.Mr.S.N. Mookherji, Sr.Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Mr.S.Dutt, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.The Court : Mr.Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate, and Mr.S.N.Mookherji, learned Senior Advocate, have made extensive submissions. Mr.Chowdhury, inter alia, showed me the minute ReceiveRs.dated April 19, 1997. of the Joint That minute, according to him, recorded the existence of Bhola Singh as a tenant. Furthermore, it recorded some alleged illegal and wrongful acts committed by him without the consent of the Joint ReceiveRs.It is submitted that the above minute would show that the Joint Receivers were in possession of the subject shop room. Mr.S.N.Mookherji, l...
Tag this Judgment!And ors. Vs. Ram Ugrah Dubey and ors.Responde
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.905 of 2012 GA No.915 of 2012 With APOT No.183 of 2012 WP No.528 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, REP. BY THE ADMN. & ORS.Appellants/Petitioners Versus RAM UGRAH DUBEY & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :16. h May, 2012. For Appellants/Petitioners : Mr.Ekramul Bari, Advocate For Respondents The Court : : Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya, Advocate GA No.905 of 2012 : This application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the State respondents to oppose the prayers made on behalf of the petitioneRs.Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/Petitioners and also the learned Counsel representing the respondent No.1 and further considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that sufficient reasons have been fu...
Tag this Judgment!Pvt Ltd and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ,kolkata Iii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
GA No.3296 of 2011 WP No.794 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction SARAT CHATTERJEE AND Co.(VISAKHAPATNAM) PVT LTD & ANR. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,KOLKATA -III KOLKATA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h May, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Debal Banerji, Sr.Adv.Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.L. Bandyopadhyay, Adv.Mr.Pritu Dudheria, Adv.The Court : The petitioners challenge an order dated July 6, 2011 by which the Commissioner transferred the case of the fiRs.petitioner from the Kolkata circle to the Hyderabad circle. The primary ground for challenge is that the order does not comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioners say that the petitioning assessee was not favoured with a copy of the proposal that was sent by the Hyderabad circle following which a notice was issued to the petitioning assessee to explain why the account or the case should not be transferred to the Hyderabad circle. The petitioning assessee r...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Aditya Scraps Vs. M/S Consolidated Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. (Liqn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT No.243 of 2012 ACO No.105 of 2012 BIFR 4 of 2004 M/S ADITYA SCRAPS Versus M/S CONSOLIDATED FIBRES & CHEMICALS LTD.(LIQN) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h May, 2012. The Court: Contrary to our expectation, today no bidder has come forward, not even Mr.Ashok Banerjee, learned Government Pleaders client has shown their face. Mr.Mitra, as usual, appears and submits that his client is the only interested party. However, because of the learned Trial Judges order, his client is not in a position to take steps. We have heard Mr.S.Roychowdhury, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Bank and the learned Lawyer for the official liquidator and we are also informed that even at rebidding before the learned Trial Judge no new party/bidder has come forward to buy up. Under these circumstances, we feel, the order of the learned Trial Ju...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »