Kolkata Court February 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.
Amarendra Nath Bhomick Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member 1. It is a complaint case under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in which the Complainant has made out that his residential house is situate and lying on the adjacent southern side of a village public road running from Aranghata-Barhatta Main Road to Arangata Railway Station through Aranghata-Masterpara and was a consumer of electricity in his residential house under service connection No. D/4813/A-185 since 1969. But, on 17.05.1994, the electricity was severed due to severe storm and the supply of electricity was disconnected. On 16.06.1994, he submitted an application to the Senior Station Superintendent and Station Manager, Aranghata Group Electric Supply praying for restoration of the supply of electricity, but without any avail. He filed writ application being C.O. No.187141 (W) of 1994 before the Honble Court which was disposed of by order dated 19.09.1994 directing the concerned authorities to fix up a pole for the restoration of the s...
Suraj Ratan Mundra and Another Vs. Vivekananda Construction Company
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
S. Coari, LD. Member 1. The present petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants namely Mr. Suraj Ratan Mundra and Mr. Kailash Mundra, the two brothers, against the OP, Vivekananda Construction Company, thereby praying for a direction upon the Ops to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in respect of the flat purchased by the complainants from the OP for valuable consideration along with a further direction to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 4,00,000/- for enhancement of registration fee and stamp duty along with litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainants being desirous of purchasing a self-contained flat paid Rs. 7,85,300/- being the consideration money in respect of the flat to the OP/Construction Company. According to the complainants, after payment of the entire consideration money in 1998 the OP issued possession letter in res...
The General Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. JalaluddI ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: 1. Being aggrieved and/or order dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23.02.2013, passed in case No. 246/2009 by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, the OP No.1 thereof has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the Complainant/Respondent No.1 in his petition of complaint is that he purchased a Tata Specio Gold on 31.03.2007 bearing Registration No.WB-16S-9486 at a price of Rs.4,63,459.00 from the OP No.3, which was financed and arranged by the OP No.2 and it was insured bearing Policy No.1000482489 with OP No.1 on 06.04.2007 with validity up to 05.04.2008 covering an amount of Rs.4,63,459.00. On 28.02.2008, the said vehicle was stolen from Bharat Petroleum Pump, Pandua, District-Hooghly, which was duly informed to the Pandua Policy Station by his nephew Mohosin Halder by way of an F.I.R. being No.27/2008 and final report No.122/08 dated 30.06.2008 was filed before the Ld. C.J.M., Sadar, Hooghly. Accordingly, the Complaint made a claim to the ...
Tata Motors Limited and Another Vs. Deepak Das and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
J. Bag, Ld. Member 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.03.2011 of the Ld. District Consumer Redressal Forum at Siliguri in their Consumer Case No. 90/S/2009 whereby the Ld. Forum allowed the Complaint on contest against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 with cost of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) only but dismissed on contest against O.P. No. 1 without cost. The Complainant was allowed to get NOC from O.P Nos. 2 and 3/ Tata Motors Ltd in respect of the loan against the vehicle No.WB-74/K-4480 apart from compensation of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) only from O.P. No. 2 and 3 towards harassment, mental pain and agony . The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: 2. The Complainant purchased one Tata Indica Diesel Car for his own use. O.P. No.1 i.e., BAJLA Motors sold the vehicle at a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) approximately with finances from O.P. No. 2 and 3 on easy monthly installments . The vehicle was purchased on 19.05.2006 and insured w.e.f from that date up to 18.05.2007...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. R.S. Manufacturing and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
J. Bag, LD. Member 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 20. 05. 2010 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata- Unit-1 in CDF/Unit-1 /Case No. 419/2003, whereby the Ld. Forum below allowed the petition of complaint with directions upon O.P. No.1 therein to pay Rs.3,86,970/- (Three lakh eighty six thousand nine hundred and seventy) only + interest @10 % p.a. thereupon w.e.f 10.01.2000 + Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows : 2. The Respondent/Complainant had purchased a policy of insurance bearing No.100900/46/75/99/4516 for Rs.5,16,000/-(Five lakh and sixteen thousand) only with the O.P. against burglary and housebreaking .While the policy was valid between 22.11.1999 and 21.11.2000, during 8 p.m on 7th January 2000 and morning of 10th January 2000, the office-cum-factory premises of the Complainant was burgled leading to the...
Metcalfe and Hodgkingson Pvt. Ltd Vs. Peace Trade Concern and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member 1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22.03.2012 in case No. 6/2011 passed by Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, the OP No.1 thereof has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the Complainant i.e. Respondent No.1 in its petition of complaint is that it placed an order with the Suppliers/Shippers, M/s. Beijing Xinyiborui Chemical Plant, China against Letter of Credit No. LCI/07-3124 dated 18.06.2007 for supply of Calcium Carbide weighing 19.8 M.T. under their Invoice No.YLS070603 dated 03.06.2007 on CIF for USD 10197.00 and Bill of Lading No. HJSCXNG107958506 dated 16.06.2007 from Xingang, China to Kolkata Port for transit to Nepal by road through OP No.2. The said consignment was insured with the OP No.1 under Cargo Transportation Insurance Policy No.20330000702020700018 issued on 14.06.2007 for a sum insured of USD 11,216.70 under Institute Cargo Clause A i.e. All Risks from warehouse to warehouse up to final destination...
Kanti Commercials Pvt Ltd Vs. Dunlop India Ltd and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
ORDER SHEET APOT No.54 of 2013 ACO No.10 of 2013 CP No.233 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KANTI COMMERCIALS PVT LTD Versus DUNLOP INDIA LTD AND ANR APOT No.56 of 2013 TA No.23 of 2013 CP No.233 of 2008 ICICI BANK LTD VSDUNLOP INDIA LTD & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :8. h February, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate with Mr.Swatarup Banerjee and Ms.S.Bagchi, Advocates for the appellant. Mr.R.Deb, Sr.Advocate for SMIEFs Capital Markets LTD.Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate For ICICI Bank Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For TCI Freight Ms.M.Bhutoria, Advocate For Century Textiles. Mr.P.Sinha, Advocate For State Mr.A.Sarkar, Advocate For workeRs.Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, Advocate For Freight CarrieRs.Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate For Workmen in Amatur Unit. The Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. On 4th February, 2013, we passed the following order: Th...
Chanda Sravan Jha Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
CA No.140 of 2011 CP No.558 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: DHEKLAPARA TEA COMPANY LTD.(IN LIQN.) AND CHANDA SRAVAN JHA VERSUS THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h February, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Tilok Bose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Ms.Smita Das Dey, Adv.The Court : Despite notice having been issued to the office of learned Advocate General, the State has no meaningful submission to make in the matter. It is submitted by the State that there is an organisation called the West Bengal Tea Development Corporation and such organisation runs five tea gardens and it has an accumulated loss of over Rs.200 crore. Since the land belongs to the State Government and the State Government has shown no interest in the matter despite repeated adjournments, the Tea Board will be under no obligation to post any security guard or take any other protective step in respect of the garden. It is ...
Mahesh Kumar Nathany Vs. Special Director ,enforcement Directorate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Foreign Exchange].ORIGINAL SIDE FEA No.1 of 2012 GA No.3172 of 2012 MAHESH KUMAR NATHANY Versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR ,ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :8. h February, 2013. For Appellant : Mr.Indranil Roy with Mr.A.Mukherjee, Advocates For Respondent : Mr.S.Bardhan, Advocate The Court : Union of India is added as a party respondent on the oral prayer of the learned Advocate for the appellant. Let cause title be corrected by the learned Advocate on Record of the appellant which shall be counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court].The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the copy of the order under challenge was served on 2nd June, 2011. Mr.Barman, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent including the Union of India, has filed an affidavit from which it appears that unsuccessful attempts were made to serve the appellant at the ad...
Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
ORDER SHEET WP 125.OF 200.GA 296.OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.PARTHA GHOSH Petitioner Versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :8. h February, 2013. Mr.P.Ghosh, Applicant, appearing in person. Mr.P.Basu, Adv.with Mr.N.K.Roy, Adv., for respondents nos.1 and 2. Mr.M.K.Basu, Sr.Adv.with Ms.S.Barman Roy, Adv., for ECL. Mr.B.P.Banerjee, Adv., for Union of India. Mr.T.Mukherjee, Adv., for State. Mr.D.N.Roy, Adv.appears for the applicant. The Court : Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on January 14, 2013, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. With the said affidavit, a chart being Annexure R-1 has also been filed. In the chart, it has been mentioned that the total number of quarters unauthorisedly occupied is 5441; eviction notices have been issued to the occupants of 5420 quarteRs.eviction orders have been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »