Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 290 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund the sum of s.35,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of R.5,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the Complainant is a bonafide registered share holder of 1000 equity shares, face value of each being Rs.10/- of BFL Exports Ltd., 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001 for which she had to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- only to the said company, the premium price of each share being Rs.35/- in the month of February, 1996. All the share certificates have been issued in the joint names of the Complainant Shukla Basu and her father-in-law Manindra Nath Basu who made appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. I.P. Lal, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.1,50,197/- which was confirmed by the lower adjudicating authority and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). 2. Ld. Advocate submits that above amount was confirmed because the appellant could not submit the certificate of realization of foreign exchange to the Department. Since then the said certificate has been received by them. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue, however, raises the basic objection that the issue is not maintainable in this Tribunal in view of the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, according to which the appellate Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction in respect of an order relating to payment of draw back. The Ld. A.R., therefore, submits that the appeal has been filed to the wrong forum which could have been filed to the Central Government. 4. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Advocate submits that he does not have any objection to file the appeal in the appropriate forum. 5. After...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.601 of 1989 G.A.No.298 of 2009 G.A.No.1340 of 2005 G.A.No.1746 of 2005 G.A.No.2699 of 2012 G.A.No.2778 of 2002 G.A.No.3049 of 2006 Paramanand Agarwal & ORS..Plaintiffs -Versus- ABL International LTD.& Anr. ..Defendants For the Plaintiff : Mr.Jaydip Kar, Advocate Mr.Billwadal Bhattacharya, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Heard on : January 29, 2014 Judgment on : January 31, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Five applications came up for consideration in this suit. A centrally air-conditioned building was constructed in the city of Kolkata at Shakespeare Sarani. Such building subsequently became popularly known as air-conditioned market. The occupants of the buildings can be categorized into two groups, namely, occupants of shops and occupants of office spaces. The entire building was let out to diveRs.tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2936 of 2013 CEXA No.22 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ESS DEE ALUMINIUM LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Along with C.A.N.No.10329 of 2013, M.A.T.No.1555 of 2013, W.P.No.19685 (W) of 2013 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 31st January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.with Mr.Satyaprem Majumder, Advocate Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate The Court : The order dated 9th January, 2014 passed in ITAT No.147 of 2013, G.A.No.2590 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II versus UCO Bank) along with C.A.N.No.10329 of 2013, M.A.T.No.1555 of 2013, W.P.No.19685 (W) of 2013, which was, in fact, intended to be passed in the above matter is today passed as follows: By an order dated 30th April, 2013 passed in Appeal No.Ex.Ap.49/11, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant before us to make a pre-deposit of 25% of the CENVAT Credit involved in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET CS No.25 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VIJAY NATHULAL SHARMA Versus GAUTAM SHARMA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 31st January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.Ms.Sananda Ganguli, Adv.Mr.M.S.Yadav, Adv.Ms.Saswati Chatterjee, Adv.The Court: The reports filed by the Registrar, Senior Master and Deputy Sheriff show that the plaintiff is represented by Mr.L.P.Agarwalla & Co.Mr.Srinik Singhvi had entered appearance on 26th April, 2004 on behalf of defendant nos.1, 2, 12, 14 and 17 and Ms.Saroj Tulsian, Advocate had entered appearance for and on behalf of defendant no.13 on 6th June, 2012. The undelivered packets have been received by the department in respect of defendant nos.2 to 8, 11 to 17 and defendant no.18. However, it appears that the defendant nos.2, 12, 13, 14 and 17 have already entered appearance. The said defendants, however, have not filed any written statement. In spite of reminders the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction G.A.No.3276 of 2013 G.A.No.3427 of 2013 With C.S.No.387 of 2013 In the matter of: SIRMOUR REMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Plaintiffs/Petitioners - vs - KEPLER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Defendants/Respondents G.A.No.3277 of 2013 G.A.No.3428 of 2013 With C.S.No.388 of 2013 In the matter of: MEDIFORCE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD.& ANR. . Plaintiffs -versus KEPLER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS..Defendants G.A.No.3278 of 2013 G.A.No.3426 of 2013 With C.S.No.386 of 2013 C.C.No.133 of 2013 In the matter of: MANKIND PHARMA LTD.& ANR. Plaintiffs - vs - KEPLER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Defendants G.A.No.3279 of 2013 G.A.No.3425 of 2013 With C.S.No.385 of 2013 In the matter of: PHARMA FORCE LAB & ANR. . Plaintiffs -vsKEPLER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS..Defendants For the Plaintiffs : Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Advocate Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Debal Banerjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.S.N.Mookerjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Tilak B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.1283 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AROTECH SERVICES (DIVISION OF ROSSELL INDIA LTD).ANR. -VersusBANKING OMBUDSMAN FOR WEST BENGAL AND SIKKIM & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Manab Kumar Gupta, Adv.Ms.Moumita Gupta, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.A.Sarkar, Adv...for the respondent No.1. Mr.Somdutt Bose, Adv...for the respondent Nos.4 & 5. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 31st January, 2014. The Court : The petitioners complain of the inaction of the banking ombudsman to give his decision on the complaints lodged by them, being Annexures-P/2 and P/4 to the writ petition. Mr.Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the banking ombudsman submits that disposed of by him. the petitioners complaints have been An order said to have been passed by the banking ombudsman is produced before the Court. Having perused the order, I am of the clear view that the approach of the banking ombudsman in deciding the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET C.A.No.369 of 2013 C.P.No.39 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : M/S.S.S.T.MEDIA P. LTD.(IN LIQN.) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 31st January, 2014. Appearance Mr.D.Sen, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Chatterjee, Adv.Ms.Suchismita Chatterjee (Ghosh).Adv.Mr.M.K.Seal, Adv.for R.P.Techvision (I) PVT.LTD.Mr.D.K.Singh, Dy. O.L.appears The Court : Pursuant to sale notice dated 28th October, 2013, no offer has been received by the Official Liquidator. The company in liquidation was directed to be sold as a going concern by an order dated 17th January, 2011, passed by the Supreme Court of India and the said sale notice was to reflect the amounts spent by the present management of the company, namely, M/S.R.P.Techvision (I) Private Limited. The amounts spent in post-liquidation period has been mentioned in the sale notice. This day R.P.Techvision (I) Private Limited has made an additional offer of Rs.12 lakhs besides the amount which it ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.383 of 2003 Md.SERAJUDDIN & BROS. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XVI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 31st January, 2014. For appellant : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate For respondent : Mr.D.K. Shome, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.K. Chowdhury, Advocate The Court : The appeal was admitted on the basis of the following questions of law: I. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the orders of rectification under Section 154 on the ground that there was wrong application of law and in rejecting the appellants contention that the issue relating to interpretation of section 40(b)(v) and Explanation 3 thereto was a debatable one and the proceedings under section 154 were without jurisdiction ?. II. Whether and in any event, on a proper construction of the provisions of section 40(b)(v)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
GA No.3018 of 2013 with CS No.118 of 2001 GA No.1256 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Gautam Kumar Agrahari Versus Stock Holding Corporation of India LTD.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 31st January 2014 Appearance: Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate MRS.Alpana Choudhuri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.S.Banerjee, Advocate Ms.Aditi Bhattacharyya for Reliance Industries LTD.The Court: Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I direct the Special Officer to determine, with the help of the parties and any expert that he chooses to appoint, e.g.chartered accountant, company secretary etc., the dividend and any other amount payable by Reliance Industries Limited to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Division Bench dated 18th July 2006 read with subsequent ordeRs.The Special Officer will also take into account the document at page 136 of the application (GA No.3018 of 2013).Any ...
Tag this Judgment!