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.
Berger Paints India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.619 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.& ANR. Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :4. h July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Abhratosh Majumder, Adv.Ms.Nilanjana Banerjee (Pal).Adv.The Court :- No one has appeared to oppose this writ application. This writ application is directed against an order under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Special Audit of the Accounts of the petitioners for the assessment year 2003-2004. The issues involved in this writ petition are identical to the issues involved in WP No.858 of 2008 (Berger Paints India Ltd.-versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Kolkata & Ors.) and Writ Petition No.110 of 2007 (Berger Paints India Limited & Anr.-versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Kolkata & Ors.).The writ petition being WP No.858 of 2008 was allowed and the impugned order was set aside by a judgment and order ...
Biman Roy Vs. Smt. Kaberi Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are at the instance of the husband and they have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit. Accordingly, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, C.O. No.3266 of 2011 is taken up first. C.O. No.3266 of 2011:- Challenge is to the Order No.88 dated June 10, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.20 of 2005 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2004. The petitioner filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage against the opposite party on the ground of cruelty. The wife / opposite party herein is contesting the said suit and she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner praying for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and a litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner filed a written objection against the said application. Both the parties have adduced evide...
M/S. Niwas Ramgopal and Others Vs. the Director of Consumer Goods and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Tapen Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners pray for a Declaration declaring that Clause 1.5 of the Policy Guidelines dated 1.12.2008 (page 87 of the Writ Petition) be declared to be contrary to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 1932 Act) The Petitioners further pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus Directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to renew the licence of the Petitioner No. 1 under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968. They further pray that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 be Directed to allow the reconstitution of the Firm (Petitioner NO. 1) in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 24.11.1989 (Annexure-P/1). The Petitioners further pray that the Respondents be Directed to extend the validity of the Token which was issued against their Application for renewal of the licence. They have also prayed that these Respondents be restrained from refusing to supply Kerosene Oil after 14th June, 2010 and allow them to contin...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Ramakanta Praharaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
AP No.94 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus RAMAKANTA PRAHARAJ & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :3. d July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Priyankar Saha, Adv.The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. Despite a direction on the Receiver by the order dated April 25, 2012 to take possession of the two vehicles that formed the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties, the Receiver has not been able to take possession thereof since the whereabouts of the vehicles could not be ascertained. The Receiver is permitted to appoint an agent to discover the location of the assets. Upon the Receivers agent finding out the whereabouts of the vehicles or either of them, the Receiver will proceed to take possession of the vehicles or either of them, as the case may be. If the Receiver is able to take possession of the vehicles or either of them by August 15, 2012, the R...
Cantabil Retail India Ltd. Vs. Ms. Rupa Guha Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
AP No.140 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CANTABIL RETAIL INDIA LTD.Versus Ms.RUPA GUHA ROY & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :3. d July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Soumya Roy, Adv.The Court : The respondents have refused to accept service of the cause papeRs.An affidavit of service in such regard has been filed. In this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner relies on the arbitration clause in an agreement of September 11, 2008. The clause is of the widest import and covers all disputes and differences arising out of or relating to the agreement. The clause provides that the parties would attempt to settle the matter and if the disputes remain unresolved, a single arbitrator would be appointed upon the agreement of the parties in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act. The petitioner refers to several letters written to the respondents for reconciliation of ...
Vs. Toll (India) Logistics Pvt Ltd..R
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.190 of 2012 C.P.No.140 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE COSMIC FERRO ALLOYS LTD .Appellant .Respondent Versus TOLL (INDIA) LOGISTICS PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :3. d July, 2012. Mr.Utpal Bose, Sr.Advocate, Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Indranil Roy, Advocate, Mr.Sankar Samanta, Advocate for the Respondent The Court : We heard this appeal yesterday. However, we could not complete it due to paucity of time. Today when the appeal is called on, Mr.Bose wants to rely upon some more additional documents. He is granted leave to file copies of bunch of documents upon furnishing copies of the same to Mr.Roy. We proceed with the hearing of the appeal. In couRs.of hearing, Mr.Bose on instruction prays for leave to file appropriate civil proceeding as against the respondent for reimbursement of the damage which, according to him, his client suffered. T...
Commissioner of Incometax, Centrali, Kolkata Vs. Surendra Overseas Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 03.07.2012 ITAT 9 of 2012 GA 137.of 2012 GA 137.of 2012 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Kolkata versus Surendra Overseas LTD.The Court :- This is an application for condonation of delay for about 2143 days. If we look at the explanation made in the petition taking its face value of the statements the period is such that it is difficult for the Court to entertain such application, but we notice the helpless position of the department. We have applied the mind with great care with regard to the statement made in the application. The learned counsel for the respondent drawing our attention to the clause (i ) of paragraph 2 and clause (k) submits that from 28th July, 2006 till 19th January, 2011 there has not been any explanation and this inordinate delay without any explanation is good enough to reject the application. In support of his sub...
M/S. Citicorp Finance (i) Ltd. Vs. Ajit Adhikari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
AP No.181 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.CITICORP FINANCE (I) LTD.Versus AJIT ADHIKARI & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :3. d July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Arif Ali, Adv.The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service and despite being represented in Court earlier. Subsequent to the order dated May 11, 2012, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh, according to the petitioner. The Receiver says that the Receiver was unable to take possession of the asset that forms the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties since its location could not be ascertained. The subsisting order of injunction is confirmed but the respondents will be entitled to use the asset in the usual couRs.of business till such time that the Receiver takes possession thereof in terms of this order. The Receiver is permitted to appoint an agent to ascertain the whereabouts of the asset. Immediately u...
Future Educate Private Limited Vs. Quickwell Packagings Pvt Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.68 of 2012 ACO No.16 of 2012 CP No.311 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE FUTURE EDUCATE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus QUICKWELL PACKAGINGS PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :3. d July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.D.Basak and Mr.Garai,ld Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Rupak Ghosh, ld. Advocate For the respondent. The Court :- The entrusted the respondent to supply Exercise appellant company Book cover during the period December 18, 2008 and July 3, 2010. The supply was made to the extent of Rs.14.11 lacs approximately. After giving credit to the sums paid on account thereof a sum of Rs.5 lacs became due and payable. The appellant Company failed and neglected to pay according to the respondent who gave notice under section 434 of the Companies Act on December 28, 2010 appearing at pages 84-85 of the Paper Book. Despite demand the payment was not made giving rise to filing of th...
Bothra Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rock N Roll Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO 11.of 2012 with CP No.502 of 2010 BOTHRA AUTOMOTIVES PVT.LTD.Versus ROCK N ROLL HOSPITALITY PVT.LTD.APO No.120 of 2012 With CP No.502 of 2010 BOTHRA AUTOMOTIVES PVT.LTD.Versus ROCK N ROLL HOSPITALITY PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :3. d July, 2012. Mrs.Manju Agarwal, Mr.Bajrang Manot for the appellant. Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Mr.Sourav Ghosh, Mr.Samrat Sengupta for the respondent. The Court : These two appeals would relate to a winding up petition filed by the respondent for refund of security deposit to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs which they kept with the appellant company. The fact would depict that the parties entered into an agreement for leasing out of a space for retail outlet to be used by the respondent. Such lease was conditional upon a certificate to be obtained from the governmental authority which the respondent failed. The appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »