Kolkata Court September 2012 Judgments
Bimal Kumar Ghosh Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.247 of 2012 WP No.985 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BIMAL KUMAR GHOSH Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble Justice PATHERYA Date: September 25, 2012 Mr.Milan Kumar Bhattacharya, Adv.with Mr.Naba Kumar Das, Adv.Ms.Daisy Basu, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.Gour Roy Chowdhury, Adv.with Mr.Barin Banerjee, Adv.Mr.J.C. Porel, Adv..for the KMC By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 22nd February, 2005 and for mutation of his premises which is comprised in dag nos.994, 994/1083, 994/1084, 994/1085 and 1000/1086. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a decree passed, a deed of sale was executed in his favour and pursuant thereto he has come into possession of no.2, Chowbaga Road, Kolkata. Once he was in possession, he filed an application for mutation as the same was not considered a writ petition was filed and order passed directing the Municipal Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. M/S. Shree Durga Iron Stores
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha) APO NO.157 OF 201.AP NO.272 OF 200.UNION OF INDIA & ANR. -VSM/S.SHREE DURGA IRON STORES For the Appellants : Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.N.N.Choudhury, Advocate Heard on : September 19, 2012. Judgment on : September 25, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.The respondent, a scrap dealer, participated in a public auction held by the Railway. The respondent was successful. It was supposed to lift the scrap upon deposit of the bid price. According to the respondent, it deposited Rs.1.4 lakhs as and by way of earnest money. He was prepared to pay the balance simultaneously on lifting of the goods. goods. The Railway, however, was not ready to deliver the It expressed its inability vide letter dated July 11, 1995, appearing at page 88 wherein the concerned officer wro...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and anr. Vs. M/S. Royal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
A.P.O.No.18 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA In Appeal from its Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Honble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta & Anr. versus M/S.Royal Constructions Mr.S.Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appears and submits Mr.A.Mukherjee, learned Advocate appears and submits Judgment on:25. 9.2012. K.J.Sengupta, J.:The appeal has been preferred by the above named appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dated 22nd November, 1990 whereby and whereunder the award of the learned sole Arbitrator has been made rule of the Court, and decree has been passed. The short fact of the case leading to bringing action by the appellant is summarized as follows:- The respondent above named was awarded contract for 60% of the total works of annual maintenance of road at residential area of the Haldia Dock Complex by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.Respond
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.683 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NIRMAL KUMAR BANERJEE Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :25. h September, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Biswajit Konar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, Advocate MRS.Kaberi Sengupta (Maity).Advocate The Court : The writ petition is against the impugned order of dismissal Learned passed Counsel by the respondents appearing for the against the respondent delinquent submits that employee. the writ petitioner was not supplied copy of the Enquiry Report and has not been allowed to file objection against the same. Accordingly he was denied opportunity to defend his case properly and lawfully. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order of dismissal was passed without considering the order passed by the Criminal Court where he has been exonerated from the charges framed against him in the C...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport Andresponde
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
ORDER SHEET W.P. No.641 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHAHID ALI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION & ORS. Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :25. h September, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Adv. For Respondents : Mrs. Shampa Sarkar, Adv. This writ application is directed against the alleged action of the respondent Customs Authorities in withholding of passport not H4493554 belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 31st December, 2009 when the petitioner was travelling to Dhaka from Kolkata by Air India Flight not IX-912 through the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, he came across one, Sri Debnath, resident of Habra, 24 Parganas [North]., who was also travelling to Dhaka and was known to the petitioner by face. It is alleged that the said Sri Debnath requested the petitioner to allow him to use the free baggage wei...
Tag this Judgment!Basesar Dayal Agarwal and ors. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 25.09.2012 APOT 45 of 2012 GA 262.of 2012 CS 11.of 2011 Basesar Dayal Agarwal & ORS.versus Nipha Exports PVT.LTD.& Anr. The Court :- In this matter the dispute relates to the payment of maintenance charges and also charges for electricity supplied by the association with their own generating and billing system. It is the allegation that there has been a theft of electric energy. The maintenance charges relates to user of the flat in question. It is submitted that flat in question is being commercially used. Before we proceed with the matter, we direct to serve notice upon the CESC as well as Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authority in order to see whether the installation of generator is lawful or not and the use of this flat by the plaintiff/respondent is in accordance with the building rules as per the sanctioned plan or not. If any or...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Jana and Others Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipore, in Sessions Trial No. 20/June/2008 thereby convicting the appellants under Sections 147/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The judgment has been assailed by the appellants on the following grounds: (i) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; (ii) that the learned Trial Court framed charge in a defective manner and, thereby, caused prejudice to the appellants; (iii) that the learned Court failed to consider that no independent witness supported the prosecution case; (iv) that the learned Court erred in relying the evidence of the P.W. 5 sacrosanct ignoring the fact the a criminal case was pending between the father of the P.W. 5 and the appellants; (v) that the learne...
Tag this Judgment!National Council of Science Museums (Ncsm) Vs. M/S. Bridge and Roof Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the award/order dated May 18, 2010 passed by the Advisor of Law Minister, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi being the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.6 of 2007. Three separate agreements dated March 18, 1994, September 7, 1994 and July 6, 1995 were the subject-matters of the arbitral award and then orders passed in appeal against the order of the arbitral Tribunal are now under consideration before this Court. The first agreement dated March 18, 1994 lays down in Clause No.44 to the effect that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs and other matters relating to claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever arising out of the contract, etc., shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person nominated by the Director General, National Council of Science Museums and if the former is unable or unwilling to act to the sole arbitration, of some other person appointed by the Director General, NCSM willing to...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jessy John Vs. the Union Territory Administration of Andaman and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Harish Tandon, J. The solitary point in issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's resort is located within the radius as defined in the notification dated 30th October, 2007 issued in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes), Regulation, 1956. By notification dated 29th March, 2005 issued by the A and N Administration, a scheme was framed for granting 50% capital subsidy on the industrial units engaged in tourism, information technology, fisheries, coconut and arecanut in rural areas. The object behind such scheme was to promote the industrial units engaged in above referred activities in the rural areas and was operative on and from 1st April, 2002 till 31st March, 2007. In order to avail the capital subsidy under the said scheme, the petitioner purchased the land situates at Sundergarh at Baratang for setting up a resort for tourism purposes. The conversion of the land for tou...
Tag this Judgment!Babul Saha Vs. Sanat Kumar Mallick and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Harish Tandon, J. These two revisional applications have been preferred against the self same order and as such are taken up together to avoid prolixity of repetition. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, has challenged the judgment and order dated 11th September, 2012 passed in Misc.Appeal No.09 of 2012 by the District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands by which an application for injunction is rejected. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner filed Other Suit No.63 of 2012 against the opposite parties seeking for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property with an alternate prayer to refund the money paid as and by way of earnest money together with interest at the rate of 18 per centum. The opposite parties are the directors of the M/s Andaman and Nicobar Fish Processing Project (P) Limited and were carrying out the business activities from survey No.96/3, measuring an area of 1.7970 hectares of land situated at Dhanikhari village under Ferr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »