Kolkata Court August 2012 Judgments
Sitaram Education Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kuldip Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
ORDER CS No.166 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SITARAM EDUCATION CENTRE PVT.LTD.Versus KULDIP SINGH & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR RAY Date:29. h August, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Dhruba Ghosh and Mr.Kuldip Mullick, Advocates for the plaintiff Mr.S.P. Sarkar, Advocate for defendant No.11 Mr.S.E. Huda and Mr.A.K. Rai, Advocates for defendant Nos.3 and 8 The Court: Mr.Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that there are as many as 11 defendants in this matter. upon all The plaintiff took effective steps for service of summons the defendants. On receipt of the summons, some defendants entered appearance but no written statement was filed by them. Mr.Sarkar, learned advocate for defendant No.11, Canara Bank submits that his client has entered appearance and filed written statement in the department. He submits further that the copy of the said written statement has even been supplied to the advocate on record of the...
Tag this Judgment!Pooja Mining and Marbles (P) Ltd and anr Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
ORDER SHEET TA 8.of 2012 T 3.of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE POOJ.MINING AND MARBLES (P) LTD & ANR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :29. h August, 2012. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee,Sr.Advocate Mr.Abhrajit Mitra,Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury,Advocate Mr.P.Sinha,Advocate For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.L.K.Chatterjee,Advocate Mr.D.K.Singh,Advocate The Court : This is an interim application in aid of a suit, seeking an injunction on the fiRs.defendant, the South Eastern Railways, restraining them from invoking the bank guarantee which is annexed to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 29th August, 2012. This is the subject bank guarantee and is for Rs.71 lakhs. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this bank guarantee is renewed till 28th March, 2013. The plaintiffs were entrusted by the Railways to do earth work in connection with ...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
GA NO.1904 OF 201.GA NO.989 OF 201.APOT NO.132 OF 201.WITH APO NO.165 OF 201.CS NO.245 OF 200.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAI MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ASOJ SOFT CAPS PRIVATE LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :29. h August, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Suman Dutt, Advocate for appellant Ms.Ruma Sikdar, advocate for Official Liquidator The Court : It appears that no appeal has been preferred under the law. No certified copy of the impugned order has been annexed with the Memorandum of Appeal not any step has been taken for putting in the requisition for drawing up and completion and for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order as there is no averment made in the application to this effect. In fact, till today no requisition has been put in for drawing up and completion of the impugned judgment and order and, therefore, in the eye of law there is no appeal. However, the court without afores...
Tag this Judgment!Limited Vs. Saurashtra Finance and Holding Pvt.Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
GA No.2347 of 2012 AP No.302 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusSAURASHTRA FINANCE & HOLDING PVT.LTD & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Joydeep Kar, Adv...for the respondents. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : August 29, 2012. The Court : The application is by the respondents to the main petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that were dealt with by a common order of August 17, 2012. In the second page of the order it was recorded that it was the fairly admitted position that a sum of Rs.2 crore was due under the four agreements only on account of defaulted instalments. The applicants, the hirer and the guarantor, suggest that the figure of Rs.2 crore is incorrect and that the correct figure that ought to have been recorded was Rs.75 lakh. The circumstances in which appropriate submission could not be ma...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Alpana Das Vs. Paresh Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the respondent and is directed against the Order No.35 dated January 14, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore thereby rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be called as ‘C.P.C.’) on merits arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.25 of 2003 filed by the plaintiff / opposite party herein. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.1064 of 2002 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said suit was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore (subsequently re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No.25 of 2003). The said suit was decreed ex parte on June 23, 2003 without any service of summons upon the wife/respondent/petitioner herein but by substituted service. In June 2002, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavesh Rajnikant Kampani Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Harish Tandon, J. The petitioner being assessee have assailed the order dated December 20, 2010 passed by the hearing officer revising the annual valuation of the premise no. 28/3A Convent Road. The petitioner alleged that the proceeding for reassessment of the annual valuation of the said property was initiated on the basis of the alleged complaint of a mother being the co-owner of the said premises which was never written by her. It is further alleged that the said letter was take out of personal vengeance and in fact, she lodged a complaint with the local police station and also filed objection before the hearing officer and the assessor-collector from placing any reliance thereupon. A notice was issued by the Municipal Authority relating to the proposed reassessment of the annual valuation of the said property under Section 184 (3) read with Section 184 (4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. A written objection was filed by the petitioner on 19.6.2009 contending that t...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand Agarwalla Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Harish Tandon, J. The petitioner’s son was admitted to South Point High School in Class-XI for the academic session 2011-2012 in Commerce Stream. The petitioner’s son pursued his studies from Kerala Public School, affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi. The said school was situated at Rairangpur in the State of Orissa. He passed out Class-X examination conducted by the said Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi (ICSE for short). English, Environmental Education, Hindi, History, Civics and Geography, Mathematics, Commercial Studies and Computer Applications subjects having secured 81% marks in total. In the month of November 2011, after having pursued his studies for several months, the school authorities informed that the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, the respondent no.6 herein, have refused to register the said student as he did not have the Science subject in ICSE. The School Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Shefalika Patra Vs. the Calcutta Electric
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.836 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF:SHEFALIKA PATRA Versus THE CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :28. h August, 2012. Mr.Asit Baran Raut, Advocate with Mr.T.Kumar Manna, Advocate..for Petitioner. Mrs.Shruti Roy Verma, Advocate..for CESC Mr.Supriyo Kumar Ray, Advocate. Mr.Imtiaz Belal, Advocate..for Respondent No.5. The Court:-Section 43 of the 2003 Act entitles an individual even if he is a trespasser or an illegal occupant to grant of a new electrical connection. In the instant case, the petitioner has applied for new electrical connection. The reason for the same is that electric supply which was given initially by the landlord has been discontinued and an eviction suit filed. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the private respondent landlord that, inter alia, for defaulting in payment of rent and electricity charges the suit for evi...
Tag this Judgment!Sristi Vanijya Private Limited and anr. Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.213 of 2010 GA No.933 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: SRISTI VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Versus CESC LIMITED & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :28. h August, 2012. Mr.S.Mukherjee, Advocate with Mr.A Bagaria, Advocate..for Petitioner. Mr.Om Narayan Rai, Advocate. for CESC Mr.Aniruddha Chatterjee, Advocate with Mr.P.Konar, Advocate. for Respondent Nos.4 to 9. The Court:-By this writ petition the petitioner seeks deletion of the name of Anapol Consultants PVT.LTD.as the recorded consumer and seeks for transfer of its name in place and stead of Anapol. Proceedings have been initiated by the added respondents against the petitioner before the City Civil Court. Although an order was passed, the same was tested in appeal. The appeal has been disposed of by order dated 23rd December, 2011 directing the parties to maintain status quo which status quo order is subsisting. Although documents ...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Super Gases and Appliancer Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
CS 55.of 1998 GA No.2147 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE TITAN ENGINEERING Co.PVT.LTD.VERSUS SUPER GASES & APPLIANCER PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA DATE :28. H AUGUST, 2012. For the plaintiff : Ms.Suparna Mukherjee,Advocate For defendant No.1 : Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury,Advocate Ms.Subrata Chakraborty,Advocate Mr.Arnab Sarkar,Advocate For defendant No.2 : Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya,Advocate Mr.Kanakendu Chatterjee,Advocate THE COURT :- Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for defendant No.2 files copy of the order of Honble Division Bench as directed by this Court. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I find that the application for rejection of plaint filed by defendant No.2 was dismissed by order dated 20th March, 2012 with cost of Rs.5000/- and it was directed that in default of payment of the said costs within the time fixed, the defence of defendant No.2 would be struck out. Subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »