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.
Haldia Nirman Projects Private Limited Vs. Steel Authority of India Li ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
AP No.821 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HALDIA NIRMAN PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Adv.The Court : The intransigence of Steel Authority of India Limited in insisting on reconciliation, despite there being little possibility of any rapprochement between the parties, cannot be appreciated. The petitioner has been dragged a third time to Court on account of either SAIL or the Standing Conference on Public Enterprises (SCOPE) not taking steps within reasonable time. In view of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner cannot take the disputes to an arbitral reference without fiRs.resorting to the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner says that a recent attempt at negotiation between the parties has revealed such divergence of opinion that the ...
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Rachna Jaiswal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
AP No.663 OF 201.AP No.664 OF 201.AP No.665 OF 201.AP No.666 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.Versus RACHNA JAISWAL AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : August 8, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Paresh Chandra Nath, Adv.Mr.Raushan Kumar Roy, Adv.The Court : Despite considerable time being afforded to the respondents, the respondents have been unable to make payment of even a part of the defaulted instalments. The previous order of July 29, 2013 recorded that a further adjournment was granted on the respondents prayer, but directed a sum of Rs.8 lakh to be paid by the respondents against the amount of Rs.14.50 lakh due on account of defaulted instalments till then. Such part payment was required to be made before the matters appeared today. The respondents seek time to make the payment in terms of the order dated July 29, 2013. Since it does not appear that the respondents a...
Anirudh Sridhar Chari Vs. Mr. Surajit Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
AP No.805 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ANIRUDH SRIDHAR CHARI Versus Mr.SURAJIT SEN BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h August, 2013. Mr.Subhasis Chakraborty, Adv.appears The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service. The petitioner claims to have given a loan to the respondent under an agreement of May 15, 2010. The agreement contains an arbitration clause to the effect that disputes thereunder would be settled by the arbitration of two arbitratORS.one being Rusi B. Rustomjee and the other being a person nominated by Rustomjee. According to the petitioner, Rustomjee has refused to take up the reference or nominate any person to do so. A copy of the relevant letter has been appended to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter called upon the respondent to agree to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal by a letter dated April 11, 2013. Despite due receipt o...
Anant Kumar Mishra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Debasish Kar Gupta August 8, 2013 WP 77.of 2013 Anant Kumar Mishra versus State of West Bengal & ORS.Mr.Sakti Pada Jana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Junior Government Advocate with Mr.B.Ghosh, Advocate for the State The Court :- Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The application filed by petitioner for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to release the dearness allowance for the period from February 2, 1984 to March 31,1997 in connection with his service as a non-teaching staff (clerk) of Gyan Bharati Balika Vidyalaya, Kolkata-700 006. The above institution is a D.A.getting school. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the above appointment of the petitioner was approved by the respondent no.3 under Memo No.768/M dated Mar...
In the Matter of : Sweety Todi Vs. Madhu Devi Saraf and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
1 ORDER SHEET G.A No.1913 of 2013 APOT No.300 of 2013 PLA No.267 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF : SHANKAR LAL SARAF (DEC) -AndIN THE MATTER OF : SWEETY TODI -versus MADHU DEVI SARAF AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :8. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Mr.Tilak Bose Sr.ADvocates, Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury and Mr.Srenik Singhvi Ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jishnu Saha, Jayjit Ganguli Mr.A.Chowdhury and Mr.J.Surana For respondent no.1 Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.Sen Mr.Pradip Sancheti and Mr.Basudev Biswas Ld. Advocates for the respondent No.2. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Ms.Lopita BanerjeeAdvocate Mr.Ranabir Roychowdhury, ld. Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr.Ranjan Bachawat with Mr.P.Sinha, Ld. Advocates for the respondent no.7 The Court :- This litigation would relate to an estate of one Shankar L...
In Rainbow Denim Ltd. – Vs. Rama Petrochemicals Ltd. Reported
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
ORDER SHEET CA No.215 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of: HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :8. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Advocate General Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate Mr.A.Majumdar, Advocate Mr.S.N.Mookerji, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate Ms.Rusha Saha, Advocate Mr.Samaraditya Pal, Sr.Advocate Ms.V.Meheria, Advocate Ms.N.Chatterjee, Advocate The Court: This is an application filed by Hindustan Motors LTD.and Hindustan Motor Finance Corporation LTD.for convening a meeting of shareholders to consider a scheme of de-merger. It is at its fiRs.stage. At the outset, even convening of a meeting of the shareholdeRs.was opposed by Mr.Pal, Senior Advocate for Bengal Shriram Hitech City PVT.LTD.and by the learned Advocate General representing the State. Both have very serious objections to this scheme. Breach of promise to the extent of fraud i...
Bmw Ventures Limited and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
W.P.No.314 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BMW VENTURES LIMITED AND ANOTHER -VERSUS- EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS For the PetitioneRs.Mr Sumon Dutta, Adv., Mr Prasenjit Pal, Adv., Mr K. Saha, Adv.For the Respondent Corporation: Mr Mr Mr Mr A. Ghose, Adv., S.S.Bose, Adv., S. Datta, Adv., U. Pramanik, Adv.Hearing concluded on: August 5, 2013. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: August 8, 2013. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : The legal issue that has arisen in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the inclusion of the name of the petitioner company in a special list maintained by the fiRs.respondent corporation amounts to the petitioner company being blacklisted. If the placement of a persons name on the specific approval list (SAL) is deemed to be the blacklisting of such person, the writ of prohibition as sought has to be issued to quash the decision since it is the undeniabl...
Madanlal Brijlal Private Limited and anr. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
ORDER SHEET WP No.677 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MADANLAL BRIJLAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :5. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Partha Sarathi Sen Gupta, Adv.Mr.Arindam Bajerjee, Adv.Ms.Sulagna Mukherjee, Adv..for the plaintiffs Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Debangshu Mondal ..for KMC. The Court: Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, few pages which appear to be the basis for issuance of the notice under Section 401 are produced before this Court. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the notice issued under Section 401, of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 to stop construction including any addition or alteration at premises no.23, Circus Avenue. Although the stop work notice does not specify the exact breach committed by the petitioner, but the basis of such notice appears to be a note prepared by Assistant Engineer (C...
Sudam Chandra Malakar Vs. Arundhuti Sen and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal August 5, 2013 GA 217.of 2013 APOT 33 of 2013 CS 3.of 2013 Sudam Chandra Malakar versus Arundhuti Sen and another Mr.Arindam Sinha, Mr.Dhruba Ghosh For the appellant Mr.D.Basak, Mr.Mainak Bose, Mr.Souvik Majumdar, Mr.Aniruddha Sinha . For the respndents The Court :- Let there be an order in terms of prayer (b) of this application. Mr.Arindam Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant prays for condonation of delay. We are of the opinion that prayer for condonation of delay is misconceived. The order was passed on April 9, 2013 and on April 10, 2013 an application for certified copy was filed. The certified copy has not, yet, been issued by the office. A division bench of this Court in Boeing Company verses R.M.Investment and Trading Company Private Limited reported in Cal. LT 199.(2) HC 30.held that as the appell...
Partha Pratim Patra Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
WP No.928 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction PARTHA PRATIM PATRA Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :5. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.M.M. Verma, Adv.Mr.Abhishek Verma, Adv.Mr.R.N. Saha, Adv.Mr.Arnab Dutt, Adv.Mr.P.S. Basu, Adv.Mr.S.Talukdar, Adv.Mr.Amar Kumar Bhaumik, Adv.Mr.Prabir Kr. Mishra, Adv.The Court : In view of the resolution suggested by Court and accepted by the parties, the writ petition may be disposed of without any blood being shed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Kolkata Improvement Trust is seeking to side with the private respondent no.5 in respect of a flat. Pursuant to recent policy of the Kolkata Improvement Trust to sell the flats in favour of the tenants or occupants, the respondent No.5 applied to the Kolkata Improvement Trust for purchase of the flat. The petitioner has put in a rival application for the same flat. According to the petitioner, the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »