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.
J.K. Agri Genetics Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. BACKDROP This appeal would involve Scheme of Arrangement between J.K. Agri Genetics Limited and Florence Alumina Limited, sanction of which was refused by the learned company Judge vide judgment and order dated May 20, 2010 in C.P. No.361 of 2006, that gave rise to the present appeal. The application was opposed by two shareholders namely, Shri Krishnagopal Motilal Chandak, the respondent no.3 and Ramesh Kumar R. Fofalia being respondent no.4. They represented about two per cent of the shareholding in J.K. Agri Genetics. They however claimed, they did hold proxies, that were wrongfully rejected at the meeting of the shareholders. Even if the proxies were taken into account that would not have any remarkable increase in the shareholding pattern as we find from the record. As per the Scheme of Arrangement J.K. Genetics and Florence Alumina agreed to have re-alignment of business operation through demerger. The transferor company was listed at the Bombay Stock Exc...
Smt. Sarbani Samanta Vs. Pratap Kumar Panja and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Challenge is to the Order No. 70 dated September 18, 2010 and the Order No.39 dated April 25, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.104 of 2003. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.104 of 2003 against the opposite parties praying, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff/petitioner has 12.5 per cent shares in the partnership firm; that the reconstituted Deed dated January 16, 1998 of the partnership firm is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs. The defendant No.1 entered an appearance in the said suit and filed a written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint of the said suit. The defendant No.3 is also contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint. The said suit was at the stage of recording evidence. The plaintiff/petitioner called for the copy ...
Anjana Srivastava Vs. Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
CC No.87 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Contempt) ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: ANJANA SRIVASTAVA Versus SANDIP KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :7. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.Mr.Prasanta Naskar, Adv.Petitioner Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debabrata Chatterjee, Adv.Respondent No.1 Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Respondent No.2 The Court : The petitioner, the plaintiff in a suit which remains pending in this Court, complains of three-fold violation by the respondents of an order dated July 21, 2011 by which an interlocutory application in the suit was disposed of. Two of the alleged violations are common to both the respondents, the third count of perceived breach is directed only against the fiRs.respondent. The facts need to be noticed to the extent necessary. The petitioner is the daugh...
Map Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.734 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE MAP Mines and Minerals LTD.Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, Date :7. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sudhir Meheta, Adv.Mr.R.Bharadraj, Adv.The Court:- It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into an agreement with M/S.Devi Resources LTD.of Honkong on or about 15th March, 2011 for export of 10000 Mts of Iron Ore Fines (+/-10%).According to the petitioner, the price of the goods was, in terms of the contract between the petitioner and the foreign buyer, determinable on Dry Metric Ton basis and the price was US $ 110 per DMT. The weight of the Iron Ore Fines and the price adjustment were to be determined in terms of the contract. Upon furnishing the shipping bill, the Assessing Officer enhanced the valuation of goods to US $ 120 per Wet MT without assigning any reason. However, as the Chartered Vessel had...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
CA No.178 of 2012 CP No.12 of 1997 CA No.511 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF : CASION FINANCE & INVESTMENT (INDIA) LTD.(LIQN) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :7. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.N.Ramanathan, Officiating Liquidator The Court : The company in liquidation is one of several companies in this country which lured small depositors against the promise of high rates of interest to invest in them only to obtain the deposits and shut shop before the payment obligations arose. By an order dated April 20, 2012, following a status report filed by the Crime Branch of the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police reporting that the company in liquidation had, prior to its liquidation, wrongfully accepted deposits from the public despite a November 23, 1994 directive by the Reserve Bank of India prohibiting the acceptance of such deposits, the report of the Delhi Police along with a copy of the order of April 20, 2012 was...
State Bank of India Vs. the Official Liquidator
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CA No.1126 of 2011 BIFR No.510 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF : MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD (LIQN) -AndSTATE BANK OF INDIA -VSTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR CA No.115 of 2011 BIFR No.510 of 1992 IN THE MATTER OF : MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD (LIQN) -AndUNITED BANK OF INDIA -VSTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR CA No.426 of 2011 BIFR No.510 of 1992 RE: MINING & ALLIED MACHINERY CORP LTD.(LIQN) Appearance: Mr.Aniruddha Roy, Adv...for the State Bank of India. Mr.Amiya Kumar Sur, Adv...for the United Bank of India. Mr.R.N.Majumdar, Adv...for 1660 Ex-employees & 89 Contact Labour. Mr.Susanta Pal, Adv...for 71 contract labourer. Mr.J.N.Manna, Adv...for 47 contract labourer. Mr.Lal Mohan Hazra, Adv...for 28 contract labourer. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : September 7, 2012. The Court : The issue that has arisen as to whether the alleged contract labourers engaged exclusively in the work of the company (in liquidation...
Vs. Cal.Municipal Corporationrespond
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.1304 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PANKAJ KUMAR METIA Petitioner Versus CAL.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :7. h September, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Pranab Kumar Datta, Advocate Mr.Atish Dipankar Roy, Advocate Mr.Koushik Dey, Advocate For Respondent : None appeaRs.The Court : Mr.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceeding were initiated against the writ petitioner and he was dismissed. He came before this Honble Court and the impugned order of dismissal was set aside with liberty to the Municipal authorities to suspend him till the final determination is made. However, in that order this Honble Court further pleased to direct that, if the writ petitioner succeeds in the fresh enquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authorities should be at liberty to decide according to law how they will treat t...
M/S. Concord Fortune Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.458 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.CONCORD FORTUNE MINERALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, Date :7. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.P.D.Mukherjee, Adv.The Court:- The petitioner company is apparently engaged in business of export of iron ore fines and has been issued an export code by the competent authority. The petitioner entered into an agreement with overseas buyer whereby the petitioner was required to export iron ore fines against concluded contracts. Export of iron ore fines is subject to customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. According to the petitioner, the export of iron ore was effected by filing shipping bills as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. It is alleged that the petitioner company declared the quantity and value of the exported consignments on actual basis,...
M/S Sai Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.773 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S SAI INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :7. h September, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Shibdas Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhratosh Majumder, Adv.Mr.Soumitra Mukherjee, Adv.The petitioner claims to be a hundred per cent Export Oriented Unit. The petitioner has duly obtained necessary letter of permission from the Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone to function as a hundred per cent Export Oriented Unit [EOU].The petitioner is engaged in the export of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid and other items which are commercially known as Acid Slurry, a major raw material for all laundry detergents. The petitioner is in enjoyment of several incentives and/or exemptions as stated in the petition. It appears that the petitioner is also exempted from payment of Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax on all imports for m...
Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Dipanjan Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No.11 dated July 19, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.2413 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.2413 of 2010 against the defendant / petitioner herein for declaration that the notice dated February 4, 2010 served by the Manager of the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff is void, ineffective and not maintainable; declaration that the notice dated February 22, 2010 served by the Arbitrator is illegal, void, ab initio; declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to all his arrears salary, etc. from February 2009 to March 15, 2009 and other reliefs. The defendant / petitioner herein entered an appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint contending, inter alia,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »