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.
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
CA No.379 of 2012 CP No.411 of 1982 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF : HIMALAYA SHIPPING Co.LTD.(IN LIQN) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h February, 2013. Ms.Usha Joshi, Adv.appears The Court : Following the order of December 14, 2012, a fair offer has been made by Backbay Premises Co-operative Society LTD.of Jolly Maker Chamber No.2 of Nariman Point, Mumbai. As would be evident from the order dated December 14, 2012 the best offer for the flat was made by Brij Mohan Chaturvedi, who was present in court on such day and is present today, of Rs.3.50 crore. However, the offer was made on the basis that there was no liability to the cooperative society in respect of the flat in question. The cooperative society has a huge claim on account of maintenance and other charges including municipal rates and taxes, but a sizeable part of the cooperative societys claim is on account of penalty and interest. In such circumstances, the order d...
Kalyan Ganguly (Gangopadyay) and Another Vs. Ganesh Prasad Chakraborti ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: 1. These are the two appeals filed by the appellant one being FA No.209 of 2011 against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Hooghly in case no.CC 158/2008 and FA No.210 of 2011 against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Hooghly in case no.160/2008 allowing the complaint cases. 2. In FA No.210 of 2011 the complainant instituted the complaint case stating that OP No.1 is a construction company and OP No.2 is the land owner of the property. OP No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement dated 19/08/04 whereby they agreed to sell the property mentioned in the schedule of the complaint and execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant for a consideration of Rs.4,09,032/-. The complainant applied for housing loan before HDFC Ltd. The said loan was disbursed and the amount of Rs.4,06,000/- was paid. The OP No.1 handed over the possession of flat no.302 in favour of the complainant on 20/09/06 and the complaina...
icici Lombard Motor Insurance Vs. Naba Kumar Saha
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
S. Coari, Member 1. Ld. Advocates for the both sides are present. The appeal is taken up for hearing in the presence of both sides. Heard arguments in full in presence of both sides. 2. The present appeal has been directed against the order No.5 dated 11.05.2011 passed by Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad at Behrampur in Case No.110/2010 wherein Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad allowed the complaint case ex parte without any order as to cost. 3. The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, is that the Complainant as the owner of the vehicle bearing No. WB 57 7519 and the same was insured with the Insurance Company after observing all the formalities thereby covering a period from 24.07.2009 to 23.07.200. According to the Appellant, on 21.07.2099, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The information of accident was duly informed to the Insurance Company on the same date and thereafter the vehicle was taken to motor garage for the purpose of e...
RobIn Das Vs. Tirthanu Roy and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Mridula Roy, LD. Member 1. The instant Appeal is directed against an order dt. 5.3.2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in Complaint Case No. HDF 47 of 2011 allowing the same on contest with cost directing the Ops to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of the said order, entitling the complainant to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- for mental harassment and agony, further entitling the complainant to get Rs. 30,000/- for enhanced price of registration and to get Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost. 2. Being aggrieved by that order the OP/Developer has preferred the instant Appeal. 3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum is that he entered into a tripartite agreement dt. 14.2.2003 with the OP/Developer and the OP/Landowners for purchasing a flat with lift facility at a consideration of Rs. 8,40,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid the amount of consider...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd and Another Vs. Alok Paul and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Kalidas Mukherjee, President 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Siliguri in case no.114/S/2010 allowing the complaint on contest in part against OP No.1, 2 and 4 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed against OP No.3 without any cost. The Learned District Forum passed the order as follows: that the Consumer Case No.114/S/2010 is allowed on contest in part against the OP No.1, 2 and 4 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed against the OP No.3 but without cost.2. The complainant is entitled to get an Order of replacement of the chassis of the similar nature and kind of the vehicle like Scorpio SC BS III. 3. The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. 4. The OP No.1, 2 and 4 who are jointly and severally liable are directed to change the chassis of similar nature of Scorpio SC BS III in the vehicle in question within 45 days from the date hereof failing wh...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
CP No.201 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: SURETECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.AND UNIT CONSTRUCTION Co.PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :4. h February, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.Soumava Ghosh, Adv.for the company The Court : The company does not have any defence to the claim. The petitioner let out a vibratory hammer with all accessories for sheet piling work to the company on the terms and conditions contained in the companys written order therefor dated April 28, 2010. The material terms of the order for hire provided for hire charges at the rate of Rs.5 lakh per month for the machine working a minimum of 26 days or 260 hours in a month and including the wages of the operator and other costs. The company also agreed to pay service tax at the rate of 10.3 per cent on the hire charges. The petitioner has relied on the invoices raised on the company during the period that the vibratory ha...
Kirit Kumar M.Patel and ors Vs. Tilak Prasad Ray and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: C.C.No.25 of 2011 AP No.231 of 2010 G.A.No.3797 of 2010 KIRIT KUMAR M.PATEL & ORS versus TILAK PRASAD RAY & ANR AND AP No.60 of 2010 TILAK PRASAD RAY & ANR versus KIRIT KUMAR M.PATEL & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :4. h Februrary, 2013. For Petitioner: MR.SAMIT TALUKER,SR.ADVOCATE MR.JISHNU SAHA,ADVOCATE MR.ARINDAM MUKHERJEE,ADVOCATE MR.KULDEEP SAHA,ADVOCATE MR.S.CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : MR.S.SEN,ADVOCATE For interveNo.: MR.A.K.CHATTERJEE,SR.ADVOCATE MR.S.CHAKRABORTY,ADVOCATE MR.AASIF HUSSAIN,ADVOCATE The Court : Heard Mr.Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.S.Chakraborty and Mr.Aasif Hussain, learned advocates for intervenor, Mr.Samit Talukder, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Mr.Kuldeep Saha, Mr.S.Chatterjee, learned advocates for petitioner and Mr.Surojit Se...
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. C.K. Sen and Co.(P) Ltd. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO 28.OF 200.WITH WP 7.of 2007 KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Versus C.K.SEN & CO.(P) LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :4. h February, 2013. Mr.Ashok Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Alok Ghosh, Advocate for K.M.C.Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Dip Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Amiya Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate for respondents The Court :- The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has come up in the appeal as against the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Single Bench. Single Bench has without any reasoned order ordered the refund of Rs.17,65,985/- to the respondent C.K.Sen & Co.PVT.LTD.The amount was realised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on account of drainage and development fee. The question raised by the appellant in the appeal is of unjust enrichment, as it is submitted by Mr.Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Alok G...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolxvii Vs. Shri Arjun Bhowmick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.3 of 2013 GA No.36 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-XVII Versus SHRI ARJUN BHOWMICK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :4. h February, 2013. For Appellant : Mr.Nizumuddin, Advocate The Court : After hearing Mr.Nizumuddin, learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that following questions of law arise in this case: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in interpreting the provision of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961, in holding that disallowance should be restricted to that amount which is payable at the end of the year whereas as per Act, payable includes paid and the payable should be applicable to the entire amount paid and payable without TDS?. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has e...
United Bank of India and anr. Vs. M/S. Shilpa Creation Pvt. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
ORDER SHEET APO No.361 of 2012 GA No.2928 of 2012 WP No.558 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Versus M/S.SHILPA CREATION PVT.LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :4. h February, 2013. Mr.Utpal Bose, Mr.Aniruddha Roy, Adversus for the appellants Mr.Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.for the respondents The Court : Since the final decision has not been rendered in the writ petition by the Single Bench and an interlocutory order is passed by Single Judge, legality of which has been questioned in the intra-Court appeal, Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that they will file affidavit-in-opposition within a period of three weeks before the Single Judge and the Single Judge may decide the case and question of maintainability of the writ petition be kept open. Mr.Sakti 2 Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, Shi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »