Kolkata Court May 2012 Judgments
Sukiram Biswas Vs. the K.M.C.and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.698 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUKIRAM BISWAS Versus THE K.M.C.& ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :16. h May, 2012. Appearance : Mr.Alok Kumar Biswas, Advocate. Mr.Sandip Kumar Dey, Advocate. The Court : With the leave of the Court, the petitioner files a supplementary subsequent affidavit developments. From bringing the on record supplementary certain affidavit, particularly from Annexure-P-11. thereof, it appears that during the pendency of this writ petition challenging the impugned notice under sections 184(3)/184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Hearing Officer passed an order in respect of the impugned notice confirming the proposed regard to the premises in question. annual valuation with The contention of the writ petitioner is that he had prayed for an adjournment on the ground that the impugned notice was under challenge before this Court and had not participa...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Singhania and ors. Vs. Quality Allen Pharma Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET APO NO.392 OF 201.ACO NO.163 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KRISHNA KUMAR SINGHANIA & ORS.Versus QUALITY ALLEN PHARMA PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :16. h May, 2012. Mr.J.Saha, Mr.S.Banerjee, Mr.S.Ghoshappear. Mr.S.Banerjee, Mr.G.Patraappear. The Court : The order dated 12th April, 2012 was mentioned yesterday by Mr.S.Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants. In those circumstances, I had directed this Company Law Board appeal to appear as To Be Mentioned. today. Today, it is submitted by Mr.J.Saha, learned counsel for the appellants that on 12th April, 2012, a fiRs.call was made of the list. Mr.Ghosh appeared for the appellants and asked for adjournment. On such prayer the appeal was made not Today.Subsequently, a second call was made when the appeal was called on again. Since the appeal had been adjourned at the fiRs.call, the learned counsel for the appellants had no obligation to be present in...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Vs. Unit Construction Company Private Limited ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT No.233 of 2012 GA No.1168 of 2012 CS No.237 of 2009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus UNIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 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 : According to us, prayer (a) is defective as leave is sought to prefer appeal. Admittedly, the petitioner, before us, is a party to the proceedings and therefore, no leave is required from the Court to prefer any appeal and it applies only in case of a third party. The practice and procedure provide that to prefer appeal in this Court in its original side by filing Memorandum of Appeal with the certified copy of the judgment and order or decree, as the case may be, no leave is required. In case of preferring an appeal without the certified copy, leave has to be obtained as is sought to be done. Therefore, the prayer (a) should be corrected i...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Adhikary Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction AP No.149 of 2012 BISWANATH ADHIKARY Versus HDFC BANK LTD.AND AP No.279 of 2012 HDFC BANK LTD.Versus BISWANATH ADHIKARY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h May, 2012. Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.Mr.Pingal Bhattacharya, Adv.The Court : The parties have resolved their differences and a suggested order has been made over to Court. The parties by mutual understanding have agreed to the following: That the petitioner in A.P.No.149 of 2012 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,30,200/- on account of instalments due up till the period February, 2012. The said payment is to be made by Account Payee cheque and the Bank shall, within 48 hours of encashment of the said cheque, release the Vehicle to Mr.Hiranmoy Adhikary, Son of Mr.Biswanath Adhikary who shall be the custodian/receiver over the vehicles until and unless the dues of the bank is cleared. Such cheque is handed over in court today. The aforesaid payments is made till Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Das Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.:- This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16th of March, 2006 and 17th of March, 2006 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No.XIII (March), 2005 arising out of Sessions Case No.7 (10) 2004. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge convicted the present appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for four months. The prosecution case may be summarized as follows:- One Putul Das lodged a written complaint to the O. C. Nakashipara Police Station, District – Nadia on 18th of April, 2004 alleging that accused Raju Das used to mix with her daughter ‘X’ (name is withheld to keep the identity of the victim secret) aged about 19 years for last four years and had physical relation with a promise of marriage ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nandini Basu Roy Vs. Smt. Namita Manna and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the order dated March 16, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.13 of 2004 (re-numbered as J.Misc. Case No.8 of 2007) arising out of the Title Suit No.81 of 2003. The plaintiff / petitioner herein is one of the daughters of Late Deb Kumar Shasmal who was the owner of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. Deb Kumar Shasmal transferred some of his properties in favour of his son, proforma opposite party no.2 by several deeds of gift. After death of Deb Kumar, the petitioner inherited 1/4th share in the suit property. The opposite party no.1 purchased 1/4th share of dwelling house in suit from Shyamali Mukherjee, another married daughter of deceased Deb Kumar. She is a completely stranger purchaser of the portion of undivided dwelling house of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. The petitioner and her husband have been residing at the suit premis...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Sadhukhan Vs. Ranadhi Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two First Miscellaneous Appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated December 5, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah thereby allowing the two appeals being Title Appeal No.s 14 of 2000 and 17 of 2000 arising out of the two suits (heard analogously), namely, Title Suit No.204 of 1997 and Title Suit No.104 of 1997. The Title Suit No.204 of 1997 was sent back on remand for fresh trial in the light of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court as well as in the misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.16 of 1998. Being aggrieved by such orders, these two appeals have been preferred by the two parties. The short facts leading to the filing of the two appeals are stated below:- i) One Guru Prosad Das got 2 Cottahs 6 Chittacks 15 sq. ft. of land comprising holding No.44/A, Hem Chakraborty Lane in the Partition Suit No.7 of 1957. ii) Guru Prosad Das executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of Baridi Bilas Das. The said Barid...
Tag this Judgment!Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd Vs. Usha Holding and Enclave (P) Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The order of refusal to stay execution proceeding during the pendency of an application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. The petitioner resisted the execution of an ex parte decree by filing the said application on the ground that the said decree was obtained against a dead person and by practising fraud upon the Court. It was alleged that the plaintiffs with the help of their recorded lawyer illegally proceeded with the suit against the wishes of the legal heirs of the defendant since deceased and obtained an ex parte decree in their favour without taking any steps for substitution of the legal representatives on record although the defendant expired on 21st August, 2007 almost immediately after filing of the suit. The applicants wanted to become a party in the ejectment suit by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Soumitra Ranjan Mukherjee and Another Vs. Sabine Marianne Mukherjee an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The husband and the wife both dissatisfied with the order dated 23rd December, 2011 for different reasons filed this application challenging the order passed by the 14th Additional District Judge, Alipore in Misc. Case No.1 of 2011 arising out of M.A.T Suit No.105 of 2008. The said impugned order was passed in a proceeding initiated by the wife under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Before entering into the illegality and correctness of the order impugned, it is necessary to consider the scope, ambit and width of Section 36 o the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which is reproduced hereinbelow: - “36. Alimony pendente lite. – Where in any proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI it appears to the district Court that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order the husband to pay to her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bothra Shipping Services and anr Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2012
WP No.386 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES & ANR -VersusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATAXII & ORS Appearance: Mr.Debal Banerji, Sr.Adv.Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv...for the petitioneRs.Md.Nizamuddin, Adv...for the respondents. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : May 15, 2012. The Court: The short point canvassed by the writ petitioners is that the reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged in Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not been afforded to the petitioningassessee in transferring the case from the Kolkata circle to the Hyderabad circle. The facts are not much in dispute. By a notice dated December 15, 2010, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII called upon the petitioning-assessee to show cause as to why the case pertaining to this assessee should not be clubbed with other related assessees and centralised under Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »