Kolkata Court August 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.
In the Matter of : Jagannath Exim Pvt Ltd and anr Vs. Registrar of Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
ORDER SHEET CP No.474 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : JAGANNATH EXIM PVT LTD AND ANR Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :12. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Rabindra Nath Pal, Adv..for Registrar of Companies. Ms.Mukti Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Jaydeb Ghorai,Adv.Mr.Dwarakanath Chattopadhyay,Adv.for the petitioner The Court: The petition is for resurrecting a company which has been struck off the list of functioning companies under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the statutory records and documents not having been filed. The Registrar has filed a statement indicating therein that a total amount of Rs.48,000/- on account of filing fees, additional filing fees and penalty would be due from the company to the Central Government if the statutory records not filed earlier were to be filed now. The petitioner accepts such position and is agreeable to pay the amount. Subject to the...
Tarakeswar Nath Tewari Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
AP No.823 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction TARAKESWAR NATH TEWARI Versus INDUSIND BANK LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :12. h August, 2013. Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.appears The Court : This is the hirers petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of a hire-purchase transaction. The petitioner claims that the finance company forcibly took possession of the asset without making a previous demand and thereafter sold the asset without informing the petitioner. The finance company has denied that it took forcible possession of the asset and relies on certain documents which demonstrate notice being issued before the possession of the asset was taken over by the men and agents of the finance company. The petitioner says that after the finance company took possession of the asset, the petitioner had offered to settle the entire claim of the finance company at Rs.9 lakh. Prima facie, upon such ...
Awdhesh Tiwary Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
GA No.2817 of 2012 WP No.1793 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AWDHESH TIWARY -VersusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Susanta Pal, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Pantu Debroy, Adv...for the CTC. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :12. h August, 2013. The Court : Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was reinstated. However, no back wages was paid to him. Mr.Debroy, learned Counsel representing the Calcutta Tramways Co.(CTC) submits that the writ petitioner has given an undertaking before the authority that he will not proceed with the writ petition provided he is given employment. Mr.Debroy, further submits that in view of the undertaking, the writ petitioner cannot proceed before this Court and he is also reinstated and has joined service. The petitioner has also written a letter to the Managing Director, CTC which reads as ...
Saroj Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
ORDER SHEET WP No.662 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAROJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :12. h August, 2013. Appearance : Mr.M.M.Verma, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Somnath Banerjee, Advocate. for the respdt. No.5, 6 & 7. Mr.Iswar Chandra Sharma, Advocate. for the respdt. no.8 Mr.Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate. Ms.Tanushree Dasgupta, Advocate. for the KMC. The Court : On a complaint regarding illegal construction alleged to have been raised by the private respondents at Premises No.80, Durga Charan Doctor Road, P.S.Taltala, Kolkata-700 014, received from the writ petitioner, the Municipal Authority has already inspected the said premises and found substance in such complaint. Accordingly, a notice under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act was served upon the private respondents asking them to stop all constructional w...
Arundhuti Developer and Constuction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Compani ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
ORDER SHEET CP No.534 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ARUNDHUTI DEVELOPER AND CONSTUCTION PVT.LTD.Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :12. h August, 2013. Ms.Santa Mitra, Adv..on behalf of Central Government The Court: The petition is for resurrecting a company which has been struck off the list of functioning companies under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the statutory records and documents not having been filed. The Registrar has filed a statement indicating therein that a total amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of filing fees, additional filing fees and penalty would be due from the company to the Central Government if the statutory records not filed earlier were to be filed now. The petitioner accepts such position and is agreeable to pay the amount. Subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the Registrar of Companies within a fortnight from date, the Registrar...
Muskan Enclave Pvt Ltd Vs. Registrar of Companies , West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
ORDER SHEET CP No.536 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MUSKAN ENCLAVE PVT LTD Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :12. h August, 2013. Mr.Prabhat Kr.Chattopadhyay,Adv..for the respondent The Court: The petition is for resurrecting a company which has been struck off the list of functioning companies under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the statutory records and documents not having been filed. The Registrar has filed a statement indicating therein that a total amount of Rs.27,000/- on account of filing fees, additional filing fees and penalty would be due from the company to the Central Government if the statutory records not filed earlier were to be filed now. The petitioner accepts such position and is agreeable to pay the amount. Subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.27,000/- to the Registrar of Companies within a fortnight from date, the Registrar will restore the name...
Ms. Chitrarekha Sharma Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporatioand ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
1 ORDER SHEET W.P No.666 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Ms.CHITRAREKHA SHARMA Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :12. H August, 2013. Appearance:Mr.Sakya Sen, ld. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amalesh Roy ld. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms.Sipra Majumder with Ms.P.Ghatak, ld. Advocates For the State. Mr.Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, ld. Advocate For the intervenor. The Court:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the illegal action taken by the Municipal Authority in demolishing a part of the third floor of premises No.7, Battala Street, Kolkata without notice to the petitioner, who is a coowner of the said premises. This Court is informed by Mr.Roy learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation that a demolition order has already been passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 7th May, 2009 under section 411(4) of the Kolkata Municipal ...
Bharati Das Vs. Aloke Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.2341 of 2013 With PLA No.88 of 1976 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: SUBODH GOPAL BOSE (DEC) AND IN THE MATTER OF: BHARATI DAS VERSUS ALOKE SEN & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :8. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Subhojit Roy, Adv.for the applicants Mr.R.L.Mitra, Adv.for respondent no.4 Mr.R.B.Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Shreya Ghosh, Adv.The Joint ReceiveRs.The Court : By this application, the Shipping Corporation Cooperative Credit Society Limited seeks modification of the order dated 8th July, 2013. The modification sought is in respect of the enhanced rent directed to be paid by the applicant along with the maintenance charges on and from August, 2013. The only reason for such modification is set out in paragraph 19 of the petition. Photographs have also been annexed. Joint Receivers had been appointed and it is quite possible that the only reason for not being able to mainta...
Anr. Vs. Diana Tea Company Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
AP No.857 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAXWELL GOLDEN TEA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. -VersusDIANA TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Adv.Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Adv.Mr.Sanjay Ginodia, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Mookhejee, Sr.Adv.Mr.S.Jain, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : August 8, 2013. The Court : In view of the urgency pleaded, the matter has been taken up without being posted in the list. The fiRs.respondent is represented. The Estate petitioners pursuant petitioners to claim an that claim to agreement their be of entitled September observer has been to Amabari Tea 2011. The 30, posted at the garden and for all practical purposes, their observer has been looking after the functioning of the garden in Darjeeling District. The petitioners complain of the steps taken by the fiRs.respondent recently, including making it difficult for the observer to be on the estate...
Dolly Mazumder and ors. Vs. Zee Telefilms Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.2283 of 2013 APO No.74 of 2013 AP No.300 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DOLLY MAZUMDER & ORS.Versus ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :8. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Paritosh Sinha, ld. Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, ld. Advocate for the respondent. The Court:- The present application has put us in some embarrassment. We heard the appeal and disposed of the same by our judgment and order dated June 7, 2013. However, while passing the order we made certain arithmetical mistake that has given rise to the present application. If the mistake would not have been there, the applicant would have got Rs.3.57 lac more. The respondent in the application as well as in the appeal, however, took a commercial decision. They took advantage of the mistake and paid a lesser amount of Rs.1.05 lac. Mr.Chowdhury would inform this Court, the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »