Kolkata Court July 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.
Shreeprokash Mishra Vs. Smt. Sabitri Santhaliay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated May 5, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No.51 of 2004 thereby expunging certain portion of the evidence adduced by the P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted an ejectment suit against the defendant / opposite party on the ground of reasonable requirement in respect of the premises in suit as described in the plaint. The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. The P.W.1, that is, the plaintiff had been examination-in-chief, cross and discharged. Then the P.W.2, son of the plaintiff tendered evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. stating, inter alia, that he is a diploma holder in Optomatric Science and he...
M/S. United Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Basudeb Mukherjee and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 10, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.95 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application for local inspection filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.95 of 2005 praying for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff-firm is a lessee in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint and the defendants have no manner of right to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property and have no manner of right to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom, a decree for declaration that the sale of the suit property made by the defendant no.s 1 to 5 is totally illegal, unlawful and against law of the land and liable to be set aside and other consequential reliefs of permanent injunction. The defendants are contesting the...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 05.07.2012 APO 8.of 2012 ACO 1.of 2012 CA 2.of 2012 In the matter of : Satya Ventures PVT.LTD.& ORS.APO 8.of 2012 ACO 2.of 2012 CA 2.of 2012 In the matter of : Satya Ventures PVT.LTD.& ORS.The Court :- There has been typographical mistakes in the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2012. The same are corrected as suggested in red ink which is submitted to the Court. The name Gandhi House. 8th Floor, 16, G.C.Avenue, Kolkata-700013. and the month July., appearing in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs at page 3 and also in the 1st paragraph at page 4, are corrected to read as words Senator Hotel, 15, Camac Street, Kolkata 700017. and August.In the 1st line at page 3 paragraph 4, the name VISUAL. is corrected to read as VISHAL.At page 4 paragraph 2 after the word through the register. it would be read as registered. and after the word Applican...
Santimoy Kundu Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Samir Kumar Kundu Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER GA No.2854 of 2011 CS No.978 of 1935 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SANTIMOY KUNDU CHOWDHURY & ORS.Versus SAMIR KUMAR KUNDU CHOWDHURY & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA Date:5. July 2012. Appearance: Mr.Debdutta Sen, Mr.Siddhartha Chatterjee, Ms.Suchishmita Chatterjee, Advocates for majority of trustees Mr.S.Banerjee, Advocate for Dhanalaxmi Mercantile Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Advocate for Union of India Mr.Ram Anand Agarwal, Mr.Somnath Banerjee, Advocates for DL&LRO, Howrah After hearing the submissions of Mr.Ram Anand Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate on Record for the State, namely on behalf of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Howrah and considering the fact that in spite of repeated requests in writing by the said authority, the Howrah Municipal Corporation has not cooperated with the officer concerned as the Corporation has not made available the Holding Map of Holding Nos.191 and 193, Andul Road, Howrah as me...
Sri Biswanath Beriwal Vs. M/S. Transmission and Distribution (India)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER SHEET APO No.97 of 2012 AP No.1086 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.BISWANATH BERIWAL Versus M/S.TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION (INDIA) LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :5. h July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.Bhattacharjee with Mr.D.N. Chandra, Advocates For the appellant. Mr.S.Talukdar and Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocates For the respondent. The Court: The appellant Beriwal was a Director of M/s.C.D. Steel Pvt Ltd., a private limited Company that was running a rolling mill in Howrah on a land belonged to Beriwal in his personal capacity. The plant and machinery embodied on the earth, however, belonged to C.D.Steel.C.D. Steel could not clear up the banks dues that resulted in a litigation at the instance of the Bank. Beriwal wanted to clear up the dues of the Bank by sale of assets. He wanted to sell his land as well as plant and machinery of C.D.Steel. Beriwal entered into an agreement wi...
C.i.T., Kolkataxi, Kolkata Vs. Akbar Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.133 of 2012 GA No.1596 of 2012 GA No.1597 of 2012 C.I.T., KOLKATA-XI, KOLKATA Versus AKBAR ALI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA And The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :5. h July, 2012. The Court : This is an application for condonation of delay of 2221 days. In spite of service, none appears for the respondent, though on earlier occasion one Mr.Supratim Dhar, learned Advocate, recorded his appearance on 26.6.2012. However, on that date he was not authorized to appear as no Vakalatnama was executed. Accordingly, we permitted two days time to file Vakalatnama. Thereafter, this matter was again taken up on 3.7.2012 for consideration. On that date accepting the suggestion of Mr.Nizumuddin, we adjourned the mater as on that date Mr.Dhar did not appear. Today, he appears and informs this Court that his client has not executed any Vakalatnama not has his client contacted ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Civitech Construction (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
EC No.77 of 2012 EC No.78 of 2012 with GA No.1758 of 2012 EC No.76 of 2012 EC No.79 of 2012 EC No.80 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Magma Fincorp LTD.Versus Civitech Construction (P) LTD.& Anr. Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:5. h July 2012 Appearance: Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rabibat Banerjee, Advocate for the judgment-debtors GA No.1758 of 2012 is disposed of without passing any order, as no case for setting aside the orders in execution has been made out. The minutes of the Receiver speak to the contrary. However, the contents of the minutes of the meeting of the Receiver held on 13th May 2012 may be challenged in the affidavit-in-opposition. Let affidavits be exchanged in all these execution applications according to the directions below: Affidavits-in-opposition be filed by 24th July 2012. List this application on 8th August 2012. Affidavits-in-reply may be filed in the meantime. These direc...
M/S. Itditd Cem Jv Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER SHEET A.P.NO.348 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ITD-ITD CEM J.Versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :5. h July, 2012. Appearance: M.Pratik Prakash Banerjee, Advocate For the petitioner Mr.D.K.Dhar, Mr.A.Dutta, Advocates for respondent The Court : The grievance in this present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is rather unusual. It is not in dispute that an arbitrator in respect of another dispute covered by the same arbitration clause and relating to the same matrix contract has been referred to an arbitrator by the appointing authority named in the arbitration agreement. Upon subsequent disputes having arisen and the respondent seeking a reference thereof, the appointing authority has enlarged the scope of the original reference in a letter which is unhappily worded but which conveys the sense that the disputes raised by the respondent a...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol I, Kol Vs. the Peerless General Financ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.128 of 2012 GA No.1526 of 2012 GA No.1527 of 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOL Versus THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT Co.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :5. h July, 2012. The Court : This is an application for condonation of delay for 2197 days. On 21st June, 2012 the learned Advocate for the respondent appeared and obtained direction to file affidavit. Today, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, not to speak of filing of affidavit-in-opposition. However, Mr.Nizumuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, informed this Court that a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition has been served upon him. We are of the view that mere supply of copy of the affidavit-in-opposition to the appellant does not tantamount to filing of the same. So, when do not find any contest, either by document or by fil...
Aroop Kumar Mukherjee Vs. the Director General, W. B Fire
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.498 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AROOP KUMAR MUKHERJEE Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, W. B FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES & ORS.BEFORE : The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA __________________________________________________________________ Date: July 5, 2012 __________________________________________________________________ Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.with Ms.Noelle Dey, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.Kishore Dutta, Adv..for the State Mr.Achintya Banerjee, Adv.with Mr.Swapan Kumar Mondal, Adv..for the KMC Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner to implead Joint Commissioner of Police (Headquarters).Lalbazar, Kolkata as additional respondent. Cause title of the writ petition should be suitably amended here and now. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and regard being had to the nature of grievance expressed in the writ petition, I find no reason to keep it pending. It appears th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »