Kolkata Court May 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: May-06-2013
CP No.248 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: PAULMECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.AND RAMANUJ SINGH BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :6. h May, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.K.C. Das, Adv.Mr.S.N. Dutta, Adv..for the petitioning-creditor Mr.Mukul Lahiri, Sr.Adv.Mr.Anindya Lahiri, Adv..for the company The Court : The companys defence appears to be utterly dishonest and without any basis and to compound matteRs.despite the document put up by way of defence having been questioned, the original document is not available in Court at the time of hearing. The claim of the petitioning creditor is on account of goods delivered or services rendered under an agreement for conversion of coking coal to beehive hard coke. According to the petitioner, there was a sum in excess of Rs.1.18 crore due as at June 15, 2009, but the parties entered into an agreement on June 16, 2009 by which the company agreed to pay a sum of Rs....
Another Vs. Union of India and Othersre
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2013
ORDER SHEET WP No.427 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TEXMACO RAIL AND ENGINEERING LTD.AND ANOTHER Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPEN SEN Date :6. h May, 2013. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Singvi, ADvocate For Respondents : Mr.R.N. Das, Sr.Advocate Mr.Subir Kumar Saha, Advocate The Court : The subject matter of this Writ Petition relates to some Demand Notices, which, according to the learned Advocate for the PetitioneRs.are illegal inasmuch as they are contrary to the provisions incorporated under the Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners refers to the proviso appended to Section 61 and submits that in terms of the right conferred to pray for extension of the period of retention of the goods in the Warehouse, the Petitioners had applied but without taking any decision thereon they straightway issued the Demand Notices. Learned Counsel for the Respondents however points ...
Anindita Kazi and ors. Vs. Broad Cast Worldwide Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2013
ORDER SHEET TA No.63 of 2013 T No.164 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANINDITA KAZI & ORS.Versus BROAD CAST WORLDWIDE LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :6. h May, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Sudipta Sarkar, Advocate Mr.S.N.Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Anirban Ray, Advocate Mr.Rajdeep Mazumdar,Advocate Mr.Sajnay Basu, Advocate Mr.S.K.Chakrabarty, Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Banerjee, G:P and Sr.Advocate Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate ..for the State The Court :168. employees of the fiRs.defendant company are before the Court. Their cause is being espoused by the plaintiff nos.1 to 6, who are part of them and who too individually have an identical cause of action. They are all devastated by the e-mail dated 14th April, 2013 sent to them by the second defendant, the Chairman of the company. It stated: This is to inform you that all the print & electronic media. Houses under Saradha Group of Comp...
Sonex Tv Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2013
ORDER SHEET GA NO.460 OF 201.WITH CS NO.41 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SONEX TV APPLIANCES PVT.LTD.Versus ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :6. h May, 2013. Mr.R.Banerjee, Mr.D.Ghosh, Ms.L.Banerjeeappear. Mr.S.Sen, Mr.J.B. Panda, Mr.R.Duttaappear. The Court : This application was heard for a considerable length of time. Although several documents in addition to the petition were handed up to the Court for consideration by both the parties, I do not understand why the third defendant did not want to file any affidavit in opposition. There are two disputes with regard to the Letter of Credit. The fiRs.is with regard to compliance with the terms of the Letter of Credit that the original of the same had to be lodged with the bank. The bank says that the original issued by World-Gain Logistics [S.Z.].Limited is with them. I directed production of the bank records and their inspection. There does not ...
Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Burdwan and Other ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2013
J. Bag, ld. Member: This order shall dispose of SC Case NOs. FA/635/12 and FA 701/12 arising from order of the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in Case No. CC/116/2009 filed by the Appellant /Complainant respectively before this Commission. Since the facts of complaint in both the Appeals are identical, we dispose them of by a common order. For the convenience sake we are taking the facts from FA/635/12. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The Complainant, the owner of Mondal Muri Mill , had taken an insurance policy bearing No. 313102/0/424/F/2008. The property insured was (1) Plant and Machineries for Rs.60,000/- and (2) Puffed rice and Raw Materials i.e. stock in trade for Rs. 3,40,000/- for the period from 19.07.2007 to 18.07.2008 . In the month of September 2007 a heavy rain caused flood in the locality where the insured mill is situated and the Complainant suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 2,92,457/-, the losses being reported to the Insurance Company against Rice, Puffed Ri...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kastur Servo Petroleum and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO NO.69 OF 201.AP NO.799 OF 201.AND APO NO.70 OF 201.AP NO.801 OF 201.AND APO NO.71 OF 201.AP NO.800 OF 201.SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus KASTUR SERVO PETROLEUM & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :4. h June, 2013. Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Swatarup Banjeree, Advocate for the appellant. The Court : These three appeals would relate to the same borrower who failed to pay monthly instalments in terms of the agreement entered into by and between the parties. The learned single Judge passed order of injunction, however, declined to pass further order directing the Receiver to take possession. Hence, these appeals. We asked the Receiver in all the three matters to take possession of the equipment. The Receiver is present in Court. She files the report. According to her, despite her best effort, she could not take physical 2 posses...
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.50 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 C.P.No.513 of 2011 ICICI Bank LTD.versus DUNLOP INDIA LTD.& ORS.- AND A.P.O.No.65 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 KANTI COMMERCIALS (P) LTD.versus DUNLOP INDIA LTD.& ANR. - AND A.P.O.No.105 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 DUNLOP INDIA LTD.versus M/S.E.V.MATHAI & SONS. For Dunlop India LTD.: For SMIEFS Capital : Mkts. LTD.For Madura Coats LTD.Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Advocate Mr.Soumava Ghose, Advocate Mr.Ranjan Deb, Senior Advocate Mr.Rohitendra Deb, Advocate : Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For Century Textile Industries LTD.: Ms.Manju Bhutoria, Advocate Mr.R.N.Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.J.B.Panda, Advocate Mr.Rishav Dutta, Advocate For ICICI Bank LTD.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Advocate Mr.Siddhartha Chatterjee, Advocate For Kanti Commercial (P) ...
Smt. Radha Rani Dassi Vs. the Official Trustee of Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.1056 of 2013 CS No.904 of 1908 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. RADHA RANI DASSI Versus THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :2. d May, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Soumabha Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Debjani Ghosh, Advocate Ms.D.Khetri, Advocate Mr.Indranil Nandi, Advocate The Court: The petitioner claims to be the sole sebait of a debuttar property. In 1913 a decree was passed in this very old suit, Suit No.904 of 1908 (Srimati Radha Rani Dassi versus The Official Trustee of Bengal & Ors.).By the decree certain properties were taken into custody by the Official Trustee with a direction to sell the same. The property or properties were accordingly sold and the proceeds deposited with the Accountant General, High Court, Original Side. Mr.Ghosh submits that upto 2005 the interest on this fund was withdrawn by the then sebait for the purpose of seba puja. After 2005 no withdrawal has been m...
Malay Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Capstan Shipping and Estates Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
1 ORDER SHEET APOT No.117 of 2013 G.A.No.742 of 2013 A.P No.808 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MALAY KUMAR CHATTERJEE Versus CAPSTAN SHIPPING & ESTATES LIMITED. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :2. d May, 2013. Appearance:Mr.Pramit Ray with Mr.Rajib Mallick and Mr.S.Ghosh Ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Malay Ghosh with Mr.Arabinda Bhattacharjee, Mr.S.Dutta ld. Advocates for the respondents. The friends from childhood. Court They :- Parties subsequently are became foe. The appellant had a land at Prince Anwar Shah Road measuring about 4 cottahs of land, which he entrusted his management construct and a friend, control multi-storied the of person the having respondent, building. the to Accordingly, the respondent constructed a four storied building having ground, mezzanine, fiRs.and second floORS.Second floor was sold to outsider. The responden...
Saraogi Enterprises Vs. Gouri Shankar Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
ORDER SHEET CS No.353 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SARAOGI ENTERPRISES Versus GOURI SHANKAR INVESTMENT (P) LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :2. d May, 2013. Appearance: Ms. S. Sengupta, Adv. The Court :- After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and upon examination of documents, by consent of the parties, the formal proof of the documents mentioned in sl. nos. 1 to 24, 27 to 28, 55, 56 and 57 of the Judges Brief of Documents is dispensed with. By consent, the following documents are marked as exhibits. Sl.not Date of documents 1. 01.04.2000 to 30.04.2000 Bank Statement issued by Bank of Maharashtra, N.S.Road Branch,Calcutta, in respect current account of the plaintiff. A.2. 18.04.2000 Receipt granted by Bank of Maharashtra, N.S.Rd. Br. Calcutta. B.3. 25.4.2000 Receipt granted by Bank of Maharashtra, N.S.Rd. Br. Calcutta. C.4. 26.4.2000 Receipt granted by Bank of Maharashtra, N.S.Rd. Br. Calcutta. D.5. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »