Kolkata Court September 2012 Judgments
Kings Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.2703 of 2012 AS No.2 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Admiralty Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KINGS OCEAN SHIPPING Co.LTD.Versus THE OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL 'M.V.HAN HE" & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :29. h September, 2012. (In Chamber) Mr.T.Poornam, Mr.Krishnaraj Thakkar, Mr.Soumabha Ghosh, Mr.A.K. De for the petitioner. The Court : The plaint was allowed to be presented and this application allowed to be moved today at 3 p.m.in Chamber further to the leave granted by the Honble the Chief Justice. Further, considering the circumstances mentioned below, the interim application was allowed to be moved ex parte. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff describes his client as the disponent owner of the vessel M.V.Yuriy Arshenevskiy.It appears from the submission made that this vessel was taken on time charter by the plaintiff. This company had the authority to sub-charter the vessel. It was accordingly sub-chartered, inter alia, to the s...
Tag this Judgment!Khokan Halder Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.05.2010/13.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rampurhat, Birbhum, in sessions Trial No. 5(March)/2009 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 304(Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with default clause. Ms. Rupa Bandyopadhyay, learned amicus curiae for the appellant, has contended that the judgment impugned is based on the direct testimony of three eyewitnesses. But, the learned Trial Court failed to consider that there were many betel shops near the place of occurrence and the owners of those betel shops were not cited and examined as witnesses. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution mostly are not ocular witnesses. Their evidences are hearsay in nature. The P.W. 4 was declared hostile. Ms. Bandyopadhyay further contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Babalu Singh Vs. Smt. Sanju Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order No.22 dated April 11, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No.624 of 2010 thereby disposing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband / petitioner herein. The husband / petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid matrimonial proceeding under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that matrimonial suit, the wife / opposite party herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month for the minor daughter and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- to the wife. Being aggrieved by such orders, the husband has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on go...
Tag this Judgment!Jadav Sarkar Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ranaghat, Nadia in Sessions Case No.104 (12) of 2004 thereby convicting the appellant Jadav Sarkar for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. One Dhiren Halder lodged one F.I.R. with Ranaghat Police Station on 3.6.2000 alleging therein that on 3.6.2000 at 1.30 hours when his sons Mrityunjoy and Arjun were sleeping in the room keeping the window open, Mrityunjoy was stabbed with a sharp cutting weapon like sphere on his back side. Mrityunjoy shouted owing to pain and Arjun woke up then and there and found with the help of torch that the appellant Jadav Sarkar was fleeing away. Extensive search was made to trace out Jadav Sarkar but he was not found in his house. Mrityunjoy was taken to Anulia Hospital wherefrom he ...
Tag this Judgment!Poddar Udyog Ltd. Vs. David Vasnaik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
ORDER SHEET APO No.203 of 2004 with CP No.311 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction PODDAR UDYOG LTD.Versus DAVID VASNAIK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :26. h September, 2012. Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Mr.S.N. Pandey for the appellant. Mr.Basudeb Mukherjee for the respondent. The Court : The present appeal would relate to a claim and counter-claim made by both parties. The respondent filed winding up petition as against the appellant before the learned Company Judge. The appellant took a plea, the money was not payable as they would have a cross-claim. The learned Judge in His Lordships judgment and order dated March 12, 2004 appearing at pages 140-144 of the paper book observed that the claim made by the respondent and the counter-claim made by the company did not have any co-relation. Those did not appear from the same transaction.His Lordship observed that claim of the respondent was genuine and the company w...
Tag this Judgment!Woodland Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Sakti Prasad Garga and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.708 of 2007 GA No.1241 of 2009 GA No.1871 of 2009 GA No.1818 of 2009 GA No.2330 of 2008 GA No.1887 of 2012 CS No.324 of 1987 GA No.2471 of 2009 CS No.228 of 1984 GA No.2472 of 2009 CS No.684 of 1986 With CS No.43 of 1989 CS No.501 of 1976 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WOODLAND MANUFACTURERS LTD.Versus SAKTI PRASAD GARGA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Date :26. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Arindam Sinha, Adv.For Woodland Manufacturers LTD.Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Raibat Banerjee, Adv.For Sakti Prasad Garga. The Court :- Learned Advocate for the defendant no.1, Mr.Ghosh, submits that the original affidavit-in-opposition was lying with him and he files the same which be kept with the record. However, as per leave granted by this Court learned Advocate for the plaintiff has reconstructed the cause title. Mr.Ghosh submits a statement in respect of the accounts submitted by the Receiver for ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Engineering Corporation Vs. Birds Jute and Exports Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
ORDER SHEET APO NO.326 OF 201.BIFR NO.520 OF 199.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VISHNU ENGINEERING CORPORATION Versus BIRDS JUTE AND EXPORTS LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :26. h September, 2012. Mr.Jishnu Saha, Adv., Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Adv., Mr.Atish Ghosh, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, Adv., Mr.Pradyut Kumar Das, Adv., Mr.Debabrata Das, Adv., Mr.Anupam Adhikary, Adv., for Birds Jute. Mrs.Smita Das Dey, Adv., for the official liquidator. The Court : The appellant participated in a public auction held by the official liquidator. While selling the assets belonging to Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineering Limited (in liquidation) the appellant purchased the movable assets lying in the factory premises of the company (in liquidation) that was leased out to them by Birds Jute, a public sector undertaking. Birds Jute applied for disclaimer of the im...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kaushal Singh Thakur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
AP No.222 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus KAUSHAL SINGH THAKUR & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :26. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Ritzu Ghosal, Adv.The Court : The respondents are represented and seek time to better the offer received for the sale of the two assets that form the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties and had been taken possession of by the Receiver. Since it was made clear earlier that the respondents would be entitled to bring offers for the assets, no adjournment can be granted only for such purpose. The highest offer received by the Receiver is of Rs.29.50 lakh from G.S.Earthmovers of Aditya Complex, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. The sale of the two assets is confirmed in favour of G.S.Earthmovers subject to the entire consideration being received within a fortnight from date. The petitioner says that the two assets cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Subodh Gopal Bose [Decd.] Vs. Sm.Geeta Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2084 of 2012 PLA 8.of 1976 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [DECD.].Versus SM.GEETA DUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :26. h September, 2012. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Pramit Roy,Advocate For Port Trust : Mr.D.R.Mukherjee,Advocate Mr.S.Ghose,Advocate Mr.R.L.Mitra,Advocate, For Receiver. The Court : On the application made by the applicants I had made an order on 27th July, 2012 directing the Kolkata Port Trust to put back the applicants in possession of the subject property. The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata preferred an appeal against that order before the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Honble the Chief Justice. On 8th August, 2012, the Appeal Court disposed of the appeal by inter alia affirming the order made on 27th July, 2012. Since the order of 27th July, 2012 was an interlocutory order this application is before me for final order. Despite direct...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Impex Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
AP No.380 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.-VersusMAHABIR IMPEX PVT.LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : September 26, 2012. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite service of notice informing them of the confirmation of the sale of the assets taken possession of by the receiver. Advocates formerly representing the respondents are present and say that they have no instructions. The receiver has received an offer of Rs.7.5 lakh for the six assets that have been valued at a combined amount of Rs.9.30 lakh. The six assets cost about Rs.19 lakh in the year 2011 but, according to the petitioner, they are in a dilapidated condition. The sale of the six assets that form the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties is confirmed in favour of Pintu Koley of 98A, Chatterjee Para, Seoraphully, Hooghly at Rs.7.5 lakh s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »