Kolkata Court August 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.
Sea Stream Navigation Ltd. Vs. L. M. J. International Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
GA No.3333 of 2011 EC No.28 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Sea Stream Navigation LTD.Versus L.M.J. International LTD.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:16. h August 2012 Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Mr.K.K. Thakkar, Advocate Mr.Swarajit Dey, Advocate for the petitioner Learned Counsel for the decree-holder has handed up to this Court a statement showing their claim as on 14th August 2012. The principal amount due is USD 42,890.89. The interest claim is at the rate of 8.5% per annum from 5th April 2000 till 14th August 2012 aggregating to USD 43,770.71. The total claim as on the above date is USD 86,661.57. Let the statement be taken on record. The decree-holder is directed to bring on record this revised claim by filing a supplementary affidavit within a week from date. not the facts. An execution application (EC No.28 of 2003) was filed in this Court to execute a foreign award. This execution application b...
Andaman Trading Private Limited Vs. Skipper Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ORDER SHEET ACO No.184 of 2012 With APOT No.392 of 2012 CP No.589 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: ANDAMAN TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED Versus SKIPPER LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :16. h August, 2012. Md.Shafiul Alam, Md.Basir Layek for the appellant. Ms.Sonia Sharma for the respondent. The Court : The respondent supplied goods to the appellant and thereby raised bill for Rs.36 lakhs and odd, out of which the appellant paid substantial sums leaving a balance sum of Rs.5,17,487/-. The appellant paid the said sum through account payee cheque that was dishonoured for non-payment. The respondent issued statutory notice of demand and subsequently approached the learned Company Judge for winding up of the appellant. The appellant did not appear. His Lordship admitted the winding up petition. The appellant subsequently appeared before His Lordship and prayed for recall of the o...
Marcopolo Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
CA No.574 of 2012 CP No.444 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE: CARRIT MORAN & Co.PVT.LTD.(IN LIQN.) -ANDMARCOPOLO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.-VersusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT Appearance: Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv...for the respondent No.3. Mr.Subhasish Sengupta, Adv.Ms.Aiman Abdullah, Adv.Ms.Ruma Sikdar, Adv...for the official liquidator BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : Leave is given to the applicants to file a supplementary affidavit within a week from date. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a fortnight thereafter; reply thereto, if any, may be filed within a week therefrom. Though the application refers to three properties, one at 9, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata another in Siliguri and the third in Tiger Hill, Coonoor, it appears that the Coonoor property has been sold at a sale conducted by the Company Court. As far as the R.N.Mukherjee Road property is concerned, ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishal Traders and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
AP No.512 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus VISHAL TRADERS & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h August, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.The Court : This is the second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the previous petition under Section 9 of the Act, the respondents were permitted to take back the asset that forms the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties which had been taken possession of by a custodian appointed under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. Some payments had been made by the respondents pursuant to orders of Court, before possession of the asset was made over to them. The petitioner complains that subsequent payments have not been made and attempts to serve advocates formerly appearing for the respondents have elicited no response. Pursuant to a direction on the Receiver to take possession of the asset ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Contempt) Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 16.08.2012 T No.29 of 2012 In the matter of : Publication made in The Times of India. and The Hindu. both Calcutta publications dated 15th August, 2012 And In the matter of : News Telecast made by ABP Anand. and2. Ghanta. on 14th August, 2012 Mr.Bikas Bhattacharya, Sr.Advocate appears The Court :- In the morning Mr.Bikash Bhattacharya, a Member of the Bar has drawn attention of this Court to the news item published in two English daily viz., THE TIMES OF INDIA. and THE HINDU. on 15th August, 2012.Both are having circulation in the city and in this State. The Times of India at the front page of the paper has printed as follows with the heading COURT JUDGMENTS CAN BE BOUGHT, SAYS MAMATA. It has been mentioned specifically by the person in the manner as follows :Speaking at a seminar organized to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the B...
Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.925 of 2012 W.P.No.904 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BAIDYA NATH GHOSH Petitioner Versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBASISH KAR GUPTA Date :16. h August, 2012. For Applicant : Mr.Arunava Ghosh, Advocate with Mr.Sougata Bhattacharya, Advocate For Respondents: Mr.Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, Advocate with Mr.Chandra Nath Sarkar, Advocate G.A.No.925 of 2012 The Court : This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated February 9, 2012 delivered in the matter. By virtue of the above judgment, it has been held that the order dated November 25, 2005, passed by the respondent no.3, so far as the exclusion of two stagnation increments for the purpose of determination of pension of petitioner is concerned., could not be sustained in law. It is submitted by Mr.Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/respondents, that the a...
Union of India Vs. Binod Kumar Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN A.P.O No.324 of 2011 A.P.No.242 of 2008 UNION OF INDIA Versus BInot KUMAR AGARWAL For the appellant : Mr.P.S.Bose, Sr.Adv., Mr.Mintu Goswami, Adv.For the respondent : Mr.M.C.Ghosh, Adv., Mr.A.Chowdhury, Adv.Heard on :16. h August, 2012 Judgment on :16. h August, 2012. Soumen Sen, J.:- The present appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of an award passed by a departmental Arbitrator appointed by the appellant. The disputes relate to non-delivery of certain quantities of scrap rails by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant invited a tender for sale by auction of 192.673 MT of scrap rails under lot no.BESY/1/98/R/UDL/5 lying in the Andal (Yard) of the Railways to be held on ...
C. I. T. Iv, Calcutta Vs. A. P. Udyog Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.240 of 2002 C.I.T. - IV, CALCUTTA Versus A. P-. UDYOG LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : This is an old appeal. In terms of our earlier order dated 8th August, 2012 notification for the relevant assessment years has been produced before us and it appears that the appeal wherein tax effect is more than Rs.2 lakh could be entertained. Therefore, this appeal is entertained and as such, we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1991-92. This appeal is sought to be admitted by Mr.Bhowmick on various grounds. After hearing Mr.Bhowmick and having gone through the impugned judgment and order, we are unable to admit the appeal as there is no substantial question of law involved, rather factual aspect is involved. It appears that th...
Bhavneet Singh Bindra Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.2202 OF 201.APOT NO.390 OF 201.AP NO.12 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APELLATE JURISIDCTI ONORIGINAL SIDE BHAVNEET SINGH BINDRA Versus SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :16. h August, 2012. Mr.Joy Saha, Adv., Ms.Rakhi Shroff, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv., Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv., Mr.Tirthankar Das, Adv., Ms.Dalia Mukherjee, Adv., for the respondent. The Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. This appeal would be heard. Let informal paper book be filed by the appellant within three weeks from date. All papers used before the court below must be included in the paper book. As soon as paper book is filed, place it for hearing. In default, place it for final order. The appellant is not willing to deposit the amount that was found to be due and payable by the learned single Judge. Hence, we do not find it necessary to...
State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
WP 379.OF 199.GA 151.OF 200.GA 280.OF 200.GA 47.OF 201.GA 47.OF 201.GA 120.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Versus UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : Mr.Sen appears on behalf of the respondents nos.4 and 5 and informs this court that the respondent no.3 has expired. In view of this submission of Mr.Sen, the name of the respondent no.3 is deleted from the array of the respondents and the heirs and legal representatives of the said respondent whose names will be supplied to the Advocate on Record of Mr.Sen to the Advocate on Record of the Special Officer, should be substituted. Mr.Sens Advocate on Record shall write a letter to the Advocate on documents. Record of the Special Officer requiring supply of necessary On receipt of the same, copies of such documents shall be made available by the Special O...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »