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-02-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.1179 of 2013 With PLA No.270 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: SABITA RANI BISWAS (DEC) AND IN THE GOODS OF: KRISHNA BHUSAN BISWAS (DEC) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :2. d May, 2013 Appearance: Ms.Divya Khetri, Adv.Ms.Debjani Ghosh, Adv.for the petitioner. The Court : The Will in question was jointly executed by husband and wife, Sabita Rani Biswas and Krishna Bhusan Biswas. Apart from the executor who is their son the deceased had two heirs on intestacy, Smt. Madhumita Mitra, a daughter and Sr.Siddharta Biswas their son. Smt. Madhumita Mitra was served with the citation on 4th June, 2011 but till date she has not filed any affidavit in support of the caveat. As far as Siddharta Biswas is concerned, I am satisfied from the report of the office of the Sheriff annexed to the petition that he was aware of the contents of the packet sought to be delivered to him by registered post with ...
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. M/S. Susanta Kumar Samal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
AP No.939 of 2012 AP No.940 of 2012 AP No.941 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION L & T FINANCE LTD.VERSUS M/S.SUSANTA KUMAR SAMAL & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : May 2, 2013. Appearance: Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.The Court : In these three matters pertaining to the same parties, seven assets are involved. The compactor which forms the subject-matter of the agreement pertaining to AP No.939 of 2012 is not traceable. The Receiver has taken possession of the tandem vibrator compactor which is the subject-matter of the agreement in AP No.940 of 2012 and the five assets covered by the agreement in AP No.941 of 2012. The respondents were represented at a previous point of time, but are not represented today despite the respondents and advocates representing the respondents having been informed of the matter being taken up today. The six assets which have been taken possession of by the Receiver have been valued at Rs.63 lakh and the sal...
Jupiter Alloys Steel (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
GA No.1019 of 2013 CS No.98 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Jupiter Alloys Steel (India) LTD.Versus Union of India & Anr. Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:2. d May 2013 Appearance: Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Advocate Mr.D.Choudhury, Advocate Ms.Poulomi dutta, Advocate Ms.Priyanka Chowdhury, Advocate for the plaintiff Mr.Partha Sarathi Bose, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ashim Kr. Ganguly, Advocate for the Central Railway The Court: Mr.Reetoborto Mitra, learned Advocate has been very fair to this Court by quickly realising the import of clause 2703 of the Conditions of Contract which are contained in the Instructions to Tenderers issued by the Central Railway. The clause stipulates that the Courts of the place from where the acceptance of the tender was issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Admittedly, the acceptance of tender was issued from Mumbai. Therefore, this forum selection clause clearly bars the present...
Dredging and Desiltation Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dhorti Dredging and Infrastr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2013
ORDER SHEET CS No.84 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction DREDGING & DESILTATION Co.(P) LTD.Versus DHORTI DREDGING & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date:2. d May 2013. Appearance: Mr.Joydeep Roy, Advocate ...for the plaintiff. Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate ...for the defendant. The claim in the suit is on account of idle charges and dredging work executed by the plaintiff. In the written statement it appears that the defendant has admitted that the total quantity of dredging executed by the plaintiffs dredger is 79926 cum. Insofar as the claim on account of idle charges is concerned, the defendant does not appear to have considered the said claim on merit and as it appears from the averments made in paragraph 14 of the written statement, the said defendant on 10th September 1997. bills were returned by the The defendant states that the bills were returned since they were not in accordance with the agreement between the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›