Kolkata Court October 2013 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.
Mayar India Ltd. Vs. M/S.State Trading Corp.of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
ORDER SHEET CS No.322 of 1998 With CS No.434 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAYAR INDIA LTD.Versus M/S.STATE TRADING CORP.OF INDIA LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 1st October, 2013. Appearance: Ms.Satakshi Dey, Adv.Ms.Sneha Ojha, Adv.Mr.Shib Sankar Banerjee, Adv.The Court : On 18th July, 2013 when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Shib Sankar Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for on behalf of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited submitted that he would take necessary instructions as to whether the matter can be settled through mediation and accordingly prayed for adjournment. This Court is also of the view, having regard to the nature of the dispute, that the matter should be referred to mediation. The matter was adjourned from time to time and on 10th September, 2013 an order was passed directing the Managing Director of the Corporation to take decision in the matter so that the hearing of t...
V.B.Seva Trust and ors. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
GA NO.2996 OF2013APOT NO.490 OF2013CS NO.228 OF2011IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE V.B.SEVA TRUST & ORS.VERSUS CANARA BANK BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE THE HONBLE JUSTICE SHIB SADHAN SADHU DATED : 1ST October, 2013. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Abhijit Guha Ray, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Aryak Dutta, Advocate Mr.Dipankar Das, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : The respondent was the tenant of the appellants. They suffered a decree of eviction. In execution proceeding the respondent offered possession in June, 2013. The decree-holders/appellants did not accept it as the tenanted premises was severely damaged by the tenant bank. The learned Advocates-on-Record for both the parties submitted report to the executing court as Joint Special Officers that would also show, the tenanted portion would need repair. The bank agreed and carried out repair and handed over possession back to the appellants. The present d...
Suresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Madanlal JaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
AP No.1044 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Suresh Kumar Jain Versus Madanlal Jain & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 1st October 2013 Appearance: Mr.Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Jishnu Choudhury, Advocate Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Navneet Misra, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.Ahin Choudhuri, Sr.Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ashis Chakraborty, Advocate Ms.Sananda Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4 The Court: The petitioner wants variation of the order dated 26th September 2013. It was in the following terMs.The Section 34 application has been filed but not as yet admitted by the Court. Therefore, all persons concerned including the Bank of Baroda are to take any correspondence made by the petitioner in the Section 34 application accordingly. List this application for further consideratio...
Saregama India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Alkesh Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.3009 of 2013 With CS No.347of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAREGAMA INDIA LTD.& ORS.VERSUS ALKESH GUPTA & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Sarvaprya Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Sounabha Ghosh, Adv.Mr.A.K. Roy, Adv.Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Sr.Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Mr.S.Basu, Mr.P.Sinha, Mr.A.Chandra, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 1st October, 2013 The Court : In a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 16 from allowing access through the websites mentioned in AnnexureG this petition has been filed for interim relief. The case of the petitioners is that it has a copyright in sound recordings which are being downloaded by some websites. This amounts to infringement of copyright. In CS No.23 of 2013 an order was passed in terms of prayer (a) by which the internet service providers were directed to block the websites through which the sound ...