Kolkata Court May 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.
Kishan Bhaniramka Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.516 of 2010 KISHAN BHANIRAMKA Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE XXIII KOLKATA & ANR. & W.P.No.515 of 2010 SREE DAYAL TIMBER WORKS & ANR. Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE XXIII KOLKATA & ANR. Appearance Mr.R.N.Dutta, Advocate Ms.Sutapa Roy Chowdhury, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.P.K.Bhowmik, Advocate for the respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :14. h May, 2012. The Court : It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners in both writ petitions that the identical facts and legal position cover both matters and any order rendered on the one will automatically govern the other. It is in such circumstances that the matters pertaining to the writ petition appearing fiRs.in the list, WP No.516 of 2010, is taken up for consideration. The case of the petitioning-assessee is that a second notice issued under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas WP No.706 of 2011 Vidula Chemicals & Manufacturing Industries LTD.& Anr.v.Employees Provident Fund ComMr.& ORS.Mr.H.K. Mitra, senior advocate with Mr.Debdutta Sen, advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Soumya Ray, advocate, for the UOI. Mr.Mihir Kundu, advocate, for the PF Authority. Heard on: May 14, 2012. Judgement on: May 14, 2012. The Court:- The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated July 13, 2011 are questioning an order of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (in short APFC) dated March 18, 2011 (WP p.34).The order was passed levying damages under s.14B and directing payment of interest under s.7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder were applicable to the establishment of the petitioneRs.Proceedings were initiated under s.7A for determining liability of...
Pradip Kumar Chaudhuripetitioner Vs. State of West Bengalrespondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1211 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRADIP KUMAR CHAUDHURI Petitioner Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :14. h May, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Arunava Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Ananta Shaw, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Subrata Talukdar, Advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate The Court : The peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is that the petitioner joined in service under the State of West Bengal as Managing Director of Britannia Engineering Produces and Services Limited, a State of West Bengal undertaking by and under Notification dated 10th October, 1990. and other The petitioner was allowed to draw allowances perquisites as was allowed to the Director and Managing Director of the said company which was fixed by the Governot by a Notification dated 27.6.1986. As per the said Notification the petitioner being the Managing Director was allowed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol I Vs. M/S Metal Scrap Trade Corpn. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.985 of 2012 ITAT No.65 of 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I Versus M/S METAL SCRAP TRADE CORPN. LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :14. h May, 2012. The Court : We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and we have gone through the statements and averments made out in the application for condonation of delay. Delay is sought to be explained in the way amongst other as follows: i].On 30.1.2005 judicial file was sent to the Ministry of Law for drafting petition for Stay Petition, Memorandum of Appeal and Application for Condonation of Delay. ii].On 8.2.2005 the Ministry of Law duly engaged an Advocate (without mentioning the name of the learned lawyer even) for drafting the petition and the appeal and handed over the necessary papers to the Advocate. It is stated that thereafter the learned Counsel, who was engaged,...
Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. Ssv Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT No.250 of 2012 GA No.1232 of 2012 GA No.1238 of 2012 AP No.631 of 2011 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus SSV COAL CARRIERS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :14. h May, 2012. The Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a).Having heard Mr.Utpal Bose, appearing for the appellant and Mr.Sanyal, appearing for the respondent and having gone through the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not unjustified in refusing to grant interim relief as prayed for. No statements and averments have been made to enable the Court to pass an order of furnishing security or to pass any order attaching before the judgment. Admittedly, it has become unliquidated money claim, which is yet to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. Moreover, we do not find any material placed before the...
Dinesh Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chandrakanta Agrwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER SHEET TA NO.59 OF 201.WITH CS NO.164 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DINESH VYAPAAR PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus CHANDRAKANTA AGRWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :14. h May, 2012. Mr.R.Bachawat, Mr.D.Ghosh, Mr.C.Dutta, Mr.A.Ganguly, Ms.K.Mullickappear. The Court : The plaintiff is a supplier of tea to West Bengal Essential Commodities Supplies Corporation LTD.They sell it under the brand name NILIMA.They have been doing so from 2005. This Corporation operates a Public Distribution System in West Bengal and utilises the tea for that purpose. On 30th April, 2012 this Corporation wrote to the plaintiff that M/S.Ramawatar [Ram Babu].Sales Agency, which is the trade name of the defendant, had stated to them that they were the proprietor of the brand name NILIMA.In that letter this Corporation asked the plaintiff to furnish proof of their registration and so on. There is a possibility of serious damage being caused to the ...
Meena Tamang Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-2012
ORDER SHEET SHEET NO.1 W.P.No.1094 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional writ jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: MEENA TAMANG Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date :14th May, 2012. Appearance:Mr.Navneet Misra, Advocate, ..for the petitioner. Ms.Chama Mukherjee, Advocate with Mr.Subir Pal, Advocate..for the State-Respondents. The Court:-In this proceeding the petitioner was permitted to sue in a representative capacity and direction was given for making publication in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to a writ proceeding. Advertisement has been published in pursuance of direction of this Court and an affidavit in that regard has been filed by the petitioner on 20th March, 2012. No one, however, has applied before this Court for impleading themselves as parties to this proceeding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted, in these circumstances, authorities made. that his ...
Madhab Chandra Dutta and Another Vs. Samarendra Nath Bhadra and Anothe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are taken up together and they are disposed by this common judgment. The two applications are at the instance of the respective defendants of the two cases and are directed against the Orders dated November 8, 2011 and November 14, 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in S.C.C. Suit No.s 362 of 2006 and 367 of 2006 respectively thereby rejecting applications under Section 19A of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. The shortfact involved in the two matters is that the mother of the petitioner was originally a monthly tenant in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint respectively. After demise of the mother of the petitioner, her son inherited the said tenancy and became a monthly tenant of the same. The opposite parties have contended that they purchased the premises in suit by a registered Deed of Sale and they filed the suit for eviction being S.C.C. Suit No.s 3...
Sk. SirajuddIn Mondal and Others Vs. Mst. Samsunnesha and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the pre-emptees and is directed against the order dated December 13, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No.94 of 2005 thereby affirming the Order No.67 dated July 30,2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Serampore in Misc. Case No.29 of 1995 under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The pre-emptors / opposite parties and the proforma opposite parties no.s 4 to 6 had right, title and interest over the ‘Ka’ schedule pond and they were carrying on pisciculture therein and they took shares of the usufructs according to their shares in the said property. By a Deed of Sale dated January 9, 2005, the preemptees / petitioners herein purchased a portion of the said pond from the opposite party no.s 4 to 6 and the said purchased property, i.e., the land in case had been described in Schedule ‘Kha’ to the application. The pre-emptors d...
Prime Shipping Inc. Six Vs. All Persons and Entities Who Have Claim Ag ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-2012
Patherya, J. This is an application filed by the defendant No.7 for modifying the judgment dated 10th May, 2006. The case of the applicant is that by judgment dated 10th May, 2006 the counter-claim of the defendant No.7 was dismissed. The said came to the knowledge of the applicant when a copy of G.A. 2131 of 2010 was served on the applicant. In A.S. 20 of 2000, a Written Statement has been filed by the applicant herein and a counter-claim though made was rejected by order dated 10th May, 2006. In the decree drawn up, pursuant to such order the said has not been mentioned. Therefore, the order dated 10th May, 2006 be corrected in keeping with the decree. The period of limitation for recall of the decree is three years. As the decree is dated 10th May, 2006 and the applicant came to know of such decree on receipt of G.A. 2131 of 2010 on 25.06.2010 and three years will expire in June 2013. In view of AIR 1988 Calcutta 358 this application is maintainable. In the event, it is held that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »