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.
Eveready Industries India Limited Vs. Gillette India Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
APOT 15 OF 201.GA 84.OF 201.CS 5.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED Versus GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : It appears from the endorsement on the memorandum of appeal that on March 26, 2012, the Division Bench presided over by the Honble the Chief Justice and the Honble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakraborty had been pleased to pass an order. We clarify that the said order was deemed to have been passed in terms of prayer (a) of the notice of motion. Mr.Kapoor, appearing for the respondent, waives the service of the notice of appeal. Therefore, let the informal paper books enclosing all the papers used before the learned Trial Judge be filed by Tuesday next. Mr.Kappor submits on instruction that his client will file such paper books in this appeal on behalf of the appellant, to which Mr...
Rkbk Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of I.T., Koliii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ITA 7.OF 201.GA 221.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RKBK FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.Versus COMMr.OF I.T., KOL-III BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : After having heard Mr.Murarka, appearing for the appellant, and having gone through the impugned order dated July 18, 2012, we feel that question (a) as mentioned in the order is required to be recast. Therefore, the original question (a) as mentioned in the order dated July 18, 2012, stands deleted and in its place and stead the following question (a) is substituted : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case together with the materials placed, the following finding of the learned Tribunal is perveRs.: (1) The assessee is not a signatory to the share purchase agreement. (2) Power of attorney, though required, not produced by the assessee and thus it has not been shown that ...
Bharnobari Tea and Industries Limited Vs. Narendra Kumar Bajoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
1 ORDER SHEET ACO No.180 of 2012 APOT No.387 of 2012 CP No.434 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BHARNOBARI TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus NARENDRA KUMAR BAJORIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :16. h August, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Mr.R.Mitra and Mr.Rajratna Sen, Advocates For the appellant. Mr.Ashis Chakraboraty, Advocate For the respondent. The Court :- This appeal would be heard on an informal paper book to be filed by the appellant by Friday week i.e.24th August, 2012 upon copies to be furnished to the respondent. In the meantime, the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.45 lacs to the respondent. Mr.Ashis Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instruction assures this Court that the respondent would keep this money in a fixed deposit earmarked for this appeal and would not utilize the said principal sum until we dispose ...
Rajgarhia Vs. Teh Registrar of Companies , West
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
CA No.521 of 2012 CP No.220 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RAJGARHIA PAPER MILLS PVT.LTD & ALOK RAJGARHIA -VersusTEH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , WEST BENGAL Appearance: Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Adv...for the petitioner. Ms.Shyamali Banerjee, Adv...for the Registrar of company. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : The Registrar of Companies has filed a statement indicating that the total dues on account of filing fees, additional fees and penalty would amount to Rs.72,000/- if the documents statutorily required by the company to be filed were to be filed now. The name of the company has been struck off on February 23, 2008. The name of the fiRs.petitioner, which is the relevant company whose name has been struck off, is deleted from the array of parties. The other petitioners are said to be the erstwhile directors and shareholders of the company. The petitioners have agreed to pay off the amount indicated in ...
The University of Calcutta Vs. Dr. Deb Kumar Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
APOT 35 OF 201.GA 195.OF 201.PLA 11.OF 198.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA Versus DR. DEB KUMAR NANDI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Das, learned senior counsel, it appears to us that the appeal should be heard on a limited point as to whether Mr.Das client has got any locus or for that matter is otherwise entitled to be reimbursed for the costs and expenses incurred for making the application made before the learned Trial Judge. Mr.Das waives the service of the notice of appeal. Let the appellant prepare the paper books enclosing all the papers used before the learned Trial Judge along with the copy of the will of the testator. books shall be filed within one week from date. Such paper In default, the appeal will stand dismissed and whatever int...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Chokse and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
AP No.511 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus RAHUL CHOKSE AND 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 a previous petition, the hirer was permitted to take back the asset that forms the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties upon payment of a part of the dues. The possession of the asset had been taken over by a custodian appointed by the arbitrator on an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. The respondents are not represented despite service. Advocates formerly appearing for the respondents appear not have any instructions. The Receiver has filed a report pursuant to a previous direction on the Receiver to take possession of the asset. The asset appears to be standing outside the Aerodrome Police Station ...
Susanta Kumar Samal and anr. Vs. Magma Fincorp Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.594 of 2012 SUSANTA KUMAR SAMAL & ANR. Versus MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED AND AP No.643 of 2012 MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus SUSANTA KUMAR SAMAL & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h August, 2012. Appearance: Mr.J.Chowdhury, Adv.Ms.Noelle Banerjee, Adv.The Court : AP No.643 of 2012 is a post-award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, made upon a petition under Section 34 of the Act having been filed by the hirer and the guarantor. It appears to be the fairly admitted position that a sum in excess of Rs.10 lakh is due on account of defaulted instalments, if the award passed in the financiers favour were to be disregarded. The hirer and the guarantor are not in a position to make payment of even the defaulted amount or any reasonable interest thereon. The financier is agreeable to accept the defaulted amount and reasonable interest thereon and resch...
Khr Hospitality India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of I.T.iii, Kol.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
ITAT 18 OF2012 GA 209.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KHR HOSPITALITY INDIA LTD.Versus COMMr.OF I.T.-III, KOL. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :16. h August, 2012. The Court : We have heard Mr.Khaitan and have gone through the impugned judgment and order. This appeal is admitted in relation to assessment years 19992000 and 2000-01 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the assessing officer, having resorted to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstances of the case, was duty bound to compute such business income after allowing statutory deduction including under section 43B in respect of the interest paid to the financial institutions of Rs.3,63,33,321/for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs.60,50,250/- for the assessment year 2000-01?. (ii) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of section 32 of ...
Biman Chakraborty and Others Vs. Howrah Shree Ramkrishna Sangha and Ot ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants and is directed against the Order dated December 20, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No.s 211 and 212 of 2008 thereby reversing the order dated November 17, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No.129 of 2008. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a suit for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and occupiers of ‘A’ schedule property and ‘B’ schedule property which is a part of ‘A’ schedule property, a decree of further declaration that the Registered Deed in favour of the defendant No.s 1 and 2 executed by other private defendants/respondents herein, is not binding upon the plaintiffs, perpetual injunction and other reliefs. The defendant No.s 1 and 2 and other defendant No.s 3 to 14 are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs moved an application for temporary inju...
Narayan Chandra Sarkar and Others Vs. Amrita Kumar Sarkar and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. The defendants are the appellants in this case against a judgment of reversal. The respondent being plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No.2 of 1979 in the Court of learned Munsif, First Court, Katwa with following averments:- The plaintiff and his brother (proforma defendant No.12) purchased ‘Kha’ schedule property standing on plot No.4807 from its earlier owner Kshitish Chandra Chattopadhayay by a kobala dated 15.02.1965. The ‘Kha’ schedule property of the plaintiff is surrounded by brick built wall and there is a door on south east corner of said house through which plaintiff like his predecessor used to come to the southern side road through a pathway which passed through plot Nos. 4818, 4819, 4816 and 4817 and which was fully described in schedule ‘ka’ of the plaint. The plaintiff has acquired an easementary right and ancient lost grant over that ‘ka’ schedule pathway. As the principal defendants threatened ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »