Kolkata Court September 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.
Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.1785 of 2012 WP No.146 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHAGUFTA BEGUM Petitioner Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :11. h September, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Indranil Roy, Mr.Suniti Chatterjee, Advocates For KMC : Mr.Ambernath Banerji, Advocate For Respondent Nos.10,11&12: Mr.Dibyendu Chatterjee, Advocate The Court : The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the inaction of the Municipal authority as the Municipal authority has proceeding which initiated was not yet by concluded the the Municipal demolition authority in respect of the illegal and unauthorised construction raised at Premises No.15A, K. Mohammad Siddique Lane, P.S.Park Street, Kolkata-16. Since the Municipal authority has not taken any ultimate decision on the said demolition proceeding, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served ...
Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP 78.OF 201.KRISHNA KUMAR JAISWAL Versus CESC LTD.AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h September, 2012. Mr.J.K.Sanwarwala, Advocate ..for petitioner Mr.Debanjan Mukherjee, Advocate for CESC The Court :- By this writ petition the petitioner seeks new commercial connection to his premises. A written objection has been raised by the private respondents and although according to the licensing company the same has been disposed of, the said has been denied by the petitioner as no hearing was given by the licensing company. No inspection could be made for obstruction caused by the private respondents to grant of access to the meter board position to the inspecting team of the licensing company. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the private respondents. Accordingly, private respondents are directed to allow access to the officers of the licensing company for purpose of as...
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. Ronit Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Andanr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction APO 2 OF 201.WITH AP 60.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 3 OF 201.WITH AP 60.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 4 OF 201.WITH AP 60.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 5 OF 201.WITH AP 61.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 6 OF 201.WITH AP 61.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 7 OF 201.WITH AP 61.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 8 OF 201.WITH AP 62.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APOO 9 OF 201.WITH AP 62.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 1.OF 201.WITH AP 62.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 1.OF 201.WITH AP 62.OF 201.TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO 1.OF 201.WITH AP 62.OF 2...
Turner Morrison Limited Vs. the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Li ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
GA No.254 of 2011 CS No.29 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Turner Morrison Limited Versus The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:11. h September 2012 Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Saha, Advocate Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Asish Mukherjee, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate for the respondent The defendant-company is a tenant under the plaintiff of an area of 5,100 sq.ft. on the fourth floor of premises No.6, Lyons Range, Kolkata 700001. The dispute in this particular application is with regard to unpaid rent and proportionate property taxes, by the defendant. It is useful to consult the chart brought on record by the defendant in their affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 28th March 2011. The chart shows that an earnest money of Rs.2 crores is lying in deposit with the plaintiff. Mr.Saha, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has shown me...
M/S. Bagchi Transport Co. and ors. Vs. M/S. Hinduja Leyland Finance Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.546 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.BAGCHI TRANSPORT Co.& ORS.Versus M/S.HINDUJ.LEYLAND FINANCE LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date:11. h September, 2012 Appearance Mr.Samir Kumar Dhar, Adv.Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.The matter had been adjourned at the final hearing of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after completion of affidavits on several occasions. When the matter last appeared on September 5, 2012, it was discovered that despite the present petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act having progressed to final hearing, the petitioners had not taken steps for commencement of any arbitral proceedings within the meaning of the relevant expression in Section 21 of the 1996 Act. The matter was adjourned on some pretext, though the Court was not obliged to afford the petitioners any time to cure the obvious lacuna on their part. It is not submitted that sinc...
M/S .Balmer Lawrie and Co.Ltd Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax,kolii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.2363 of 2012 ITAT No.200 of 2012 M/S .BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOL-II BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date :11. h September, 2012. The Court : We have heard Mr.Poddar, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Nizumuddin, learned Advocate, on the question of grant of stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order. Granting of order of stay is governed by the provisions of Section 260A sub-Section 7 read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs provision of grant of stay of proceedings and/or execution. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code provides as follows: (3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied(a) that substantial loss may result to the party apply...
Syed Shah Abul Basar MohiddIn Md. Zaber Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET WP NO.257 OF 200.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SYED SHAH ABUL BASAR MOHIDDIN Md.ZABER Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :11. h September, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Subir Sanyal with Mr.S.P.Jana And Mr.Pranab Chatterjee. For School Service Commission : Mr.A.Gangopadhyay. For State : Mr.J.Mazumdar and Mr.D.Ray. The Court : The controveRs.as made out in this writ petition is that the selection of the private respondent who was fiRs.empanelled candidate in the panel prepared for recommendation in the post of Headmaster in Pandua Sultania High Madrasa cancelled. is Mr.illegal Sanyal and the appearing empanelment for the writ private respondent petitioner submits should be that the petitioner is a highly qualified person and he has secured high percentage of marks as would appear from mark sheets annexed. However, the selection was not properly made. Therefore, his client is entitle...
Smt Asha Tulshyan and anr. Vs. Joint Secretary, Urban Development
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.591 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT ASHA TULSHYAN & ANR. Versus JOINT SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Date :11. h September, 2012. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Sib Sankar Das, Mr.Hemanta Kr. Das, Adversus for the petitioners Mr.Sadhan Halder, Mr.Deb Narayan Roy, Adversus for the State The Court : In terms of the order dated 23rd August, 2012, the concerned officer, being the Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Cooperation Directorate, Kolkata Metropolitan Area Housing Cell, is personally present in Court ready with the report in the form of an affidavit, which was directed to be filed in terms of the order dated 26th July, 2012. On his behalf learned advocate for the State tenders unqualified apology and submits that henceforth the said officer shall be careful and prompt while complying with Courts order. The apology tendered by the learned advocate for ...
Union of India Vs. Fescon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.109 of 2010 AC No.9 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UNION OF INDIA Versus FESCo.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :11. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Swapan Kr. Banerjee with Mr.Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocates For the Appellant. Mr.Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Bijon Majumder, Advocate For the respondent. HEARD ON: September 06, 2012 JUDGMENT ON: September 11, 2012. The Court :- The subject appeal would relate to an award that was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere. Hence this appeal. The parties entered into a contract wherein 13 work orders were issued by the Railways in favour of the respondent. The learned Single Judge by an order dated September 9, 1996 appointed a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator considered the claims and counter claims and, ultimately, published an awa...
Amalendu Bhattacharjee Vs. the West Bengal Power Development Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated January 13, 2012 passed by the respondent no.4. By virtue of the impugned order the respondent no.4 came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to enjoy pensionary benefit under the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited employees’ (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1992. The back drop of the case in a nutshell is as under: The respondent corporation published an advertisement in “The Sunday Statesman” dated March 9, 1986 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment in the post of Finance Director at a monthly scale of pay of Rs.3,750(fixed). In addition he would be entitled to a special pay of Rs.250/- per month and other allowances, i.e. Medical Allowance, Electricity Allowance, House Rent Allowance, variable dearness allowance, leave travel concession etc. as per rules of the corporation. The petitioner submitted application for particip...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »