Kolkata Court July 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.
Lifeline Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mihijam Vanaspati Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.299 of 2013 CS No.350 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LIFELINE VINCo.PVT.LTD.Versus MIHIJAM VANASPATI LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h July, 2013. Ms.Manju Agarwal, Mr.S.S.Bose, Mr.Biswanath Chatterjee, Adversus for the plaintiff Mr.Soumabha Ghosh, Mr.Protyush Chatterjee, Adversus for the defendant The Court : In a suit under Order 37 this application has been filed for a decree. An opportunity was given to the defendant to file an application for leave to defend. Such application was filed and on consideration, the same was dismissed, as no triable issue arose. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in this application. Admittedly a sum of Rs.25 lakh was given as inter-corporate deposit by the plaintiff to the defendant through RTGS and the same was also renewed after the initial expiry period. Postdated cheques were issued for payment of interest and the principal amount. T...
Re: Santimoy Kundu Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Soumitra Kundu Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
ORDER SHEET CC NO.62 OF 201.APOT NO.122 OF 201.CS NO.978 OF 193.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE: SANTIMOY KUNDU CHOWDHURY & ORS.Versus SOUMITRA KUNDU CHOWDHURY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR.MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :11. h July, 2013. Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.D.Sen, Advocate Mr.S.Chatterjee, Advocate Ms.S.Chatterjee (nee Ghosh).Advocate Mr.M.K.Seal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kalyan Bandapadhyay, Senior Advocate Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.H.P.Basu, Advocate Mr.Sukrit Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Debasish Basu, Advocate for the contemnor. The Court : In a suit for partition, where the vast chunk of land mostly situated in the District of Howrah is involved, the Court appointed Party Receivers Soumitra Kundu Chowdhury, the contemnor, is one of them. The learned single Judge by an order dated March 9, 2010 passed an ex parte order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition wherein a large chunk ...
Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.546 of 2012 FORUM PROJECTS PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :11. h July, 2013. Appearance: Mr.S.Mukherjee, Sr.Adv. for the Petitioners Mr.A.K. Banerjee, Ld. GP. Mr.B.Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.D.Mondal, Adv. for the K.M.C.This Court: The annual valuation of the petitioners premises, being premises No.1001/A, Eastern Metropolitan By-Pass with effect from the second quarter of 2010-11, was assessed by the municipal authority at Rs.7,77,77,780/. The copy of the assessment order has not been supplied to the petitioneRs.Section 188(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act of 1980 gives a mandate upon the municipal authority to supply a copy of the assessment order to the person who objected to such assessment. As a matter of fact, time for filing an appeal for challenging the said order before the appellate forum will run f...
Lifeline Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mihijam Vanaspati Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
ORDER SHEET GA NO.299 OF 201.CS NO.350 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LIFELINE VINCo.PVT.LTD.Versus MIHIJAM VANASPATI LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :4. h July, 2013. Appearance: Ms.Manju Agarwal,Advocate appears Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Mr.T.Saraf, Advocate appear The Court : By order dated 25th April, 2013, the defendant was given time to file an application for leave to defend. Subsequent to the said order after taking extension, the application for leave to defend was filed by the defendant and the sole reason for seeking leave to defend either unconditional or on terms and leave to file a written statement is that C.S.No.332 of 2012 has been filed. One Prabhu Dayal Sarawagi was instrumental in the plaintiff making inter-corporate deposit in the defendant and it was on the basis of such inter corporate deposit that loan had given by the defendant to Shyam Steel Trading Company. The understanding was that upon such dep...
Abhay Kumar Chopra Vs. Nicco Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.914 of 2013 With CS No.224 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ABHAY KUMAR CHOPRA Versus NICCO POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :4. h July, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Ashis Kr. Mukherjee, Advocte ..for the petitioner The Court: In a suit for decree for goods sold and delivered, this application has been filed for interim relief. The case of the petitioner is that goods were supplied to the respondent and have been consumed. No dispute has been raised with regard to the quality or quantity dispatched. Cheques were also issued but have been dishonoured due to insufficient funds. By letter dated 22nd March, 2012, the respondent has accepted its liability to make payment and the only reason for non-payment has been attributed to acute financial crisis. The respondent has also proposed to release payments in four monthly instalments. Relying on the said representation made and believing the same...
Smt. Amita Basu Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
ORDER SHEET WP NO.287 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. AMITA BASU Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :4. h July, 2013. Mr.S.Senfor petitioner. Mr.D.Chakraborty, Mrs.S.Chakrabortyfor KMC. The Court : Even at the second call, none appears for the sixth and seventh respondents. It appears that the sixth and seventh respondents are tenants under the writ petitioner and with her consent have been running a Fast Food restaurant from the premises in question. It was noted in the letter of the Executive Engineer, Water Supply [West]., Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 24th January, 2009 that the above respondents were taking water connection from the petitioner. They were advised to take separate commercial connection as soon as possible. Furthermore, it appears that the said respondents had made some allegedly unauthorised constructions with regard to which an appeal is pending b...
Madanlall Agarwal and ors. Vs. Puranmull Agarwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.1865 of 2013 CS No.154 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MADANLALL AGARWAL & ORS.Versus PURANMULL AGARWAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :4. h July, 2013. Mr.Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debasis Kundu, Adv.Ms.Manju Agarwal, Adv.Mr.B.Manot, Adv.for the petitioners Mr.Pramit Ray, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mallick, Adv.Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv.for defendant Nos.1,2,10,17,18 Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Swarnendu Ghosh, Adv.MRS.Rajashree Roy, Adv.Mr.Rajat Sarkar, Adv.Mr.Naresh Balodia, Adv.for defendant Nos.3,4,5,19,20,21,23,24,25,26 Mr.Utpal Bose, Mr.P.K.Bagaria, Mr.J.Chatterjee, Adversus for defendant Nos.6,7,8,9,22 Ms.Aiman Abdullah, Mr.Sourav Sengupta, Adversus for defendant Nos.11 to 16 The Court : In effect this is a suit for partition of the properties and assets belonging to the Agarwal family. Sitarum Agarwal was the father of Hargovind and Ramgopal. The fight is between the heirs of Hargovind and several a...
Gita Roy and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.572 of 2013 GITA ROY & ORS.Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :4. h July, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Partha Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Joyanta Mukherjee, Adv. for the Petitioner Mr.Fazlul Haque, Adv.Mr.Gopal Ch. Das, Adv. for the K.M.C.The Court: The petitioners application for mutation was rejected by the Municipal Authority on the ground that the land being not demarcated, mutation cannot be allowed. The decision of the Municipal Authority was communicated to the petitioner vide the Assistant Assessors letter dated 4th November, 2012 appearing at page 69 of the writ petition. The legality and/or perpetuity of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners father purchased a demarcated plot of land containing an area of 5 cottah 8 chitak from his vendor, namely, Sr.Radha Ballav Roy by a registered deed of Kobala dated 28th Sept...
Titagarh Wagons Limited Vs. Rsk Logistics and Trading Gmbh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
AP No.709 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TITAGARH WAGONS LIMITED Versus Rs.LOGISTICS & TRADING GMBH & ANR. Appearance Mr.Jishnu Saha, Adv.Petitioner Mr.Sudhakar Prasad, Adv.Respondent No.2 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :4. h July, 2013. The Court : The petitioner seeks refund of a deposit made in terms of an order dated July 7, 2006 passed on a previous petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That order was made prior to the arbitral reference being taken up. The petitioner reports that the reference has since been concluded and an award has been passed in the petitioners favour on September 3, 2012. The award finds the petitioner entitled to payment from the fiRs.respondent. The petitioner says that the fiRs.respondent has gone into liquidation in Germany and the second respondent is no longer the agent of the fiRs.respondent. It is unclear as to whether any custodian or liquid...
Followel Engineering Limited Vs. Parekh Aluminex Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.1864 of 2013 CS No.177 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE FOLLOWEL ENGINEERING LIMITED Versus PAREKH ALUMINEX LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :4. h July, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Ms.R.Kajaria,Advocate Mr.Saumabho Ghosh, Advocate Ms.S.Sharma, Advocate Mr.S.Mukherjee, Advocate for the plaintiff Ms.Puja Das Chowdhury, Advocate for the defendants The Court: Directions are given for filing affidavits. Affidavit in opposition be filed within a fortnight; reply thereto, if any, a week thereafter. Matter to appear in the list four weeks hence. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 is indebted to the plaintiff in respect of the inter-corporate loan of Rs.1,50,000,00/- with interest accrued thereon. subsequently dishonoured dishonour cheque, of the A cheque for suit was also non-payment. was issued Due necessitated but to such and this application filed. It has been submitted by Counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »