Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET CC N0. 3 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Contempt].ORIGINAL SIDE WINSTAR INDIA INVESTMENT Co.LTD.Versus HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th January, 2014. Mr.S.B. Mookherji, Mr.S.N.Mookherji, senior advocates, Mr.S.Prasadfor petitioner. Mr.P.Chatterjee, senior advocate, Mr.A.Banerjee, Mr.S.R.Chowdhury, Mr.A.Garodiafor respondent nos.1,3,4,9 & 11. Mr.S.Mitra, senior advocate for respondent no.5. Mr.S.Sarkar, senior advocate, Ms.M.Bhattacharyyafor respondent no.6. Mr.J.Saha, Mr.S.Ginodia, Mr.R.Kapoor, Mr.M.K.Tiwarifor respondent nos.2, 8 & 10. The Court : The issue involved in this application for contempt is whether the judgment and order of this Court dated 29th April, 2013 has been violated by the alleged contemnORS.The fiRs.point raised by Mr.S.B.Mookherji, learned senior advocate for the petitioner is that the order enjoined ten days notice to be given to Winstar [India].Investment Company LTD.befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER GA No.921 of 2013 GA No.748 of 2013 GA No.749 of 2013 TS No.18 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction IN THE GOODS OF: SAJANI DEVI BHARTIA (DECEASED) JAGMOHAN KEJRIWAL & ORS.-VSASHRANT BHARTIA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 24th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Sudipto Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Ms.Mousumi Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.C.M. Ghorawat, Advocate Mr.S.Kanti Chakraborty, Advocate for the plaintiffs Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Mr.Sandip Dasgupta, Advocate Mr.Arnab Sardar, Advocate for the defendants Court: The three applications being GA No.921 of 2013, GA No.748 of 2013 and GA No.749 of 2013 are taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The three applications are arising out of a probate application filed by Jagmohan Kejriwal, Uma Shankar Bhartia, Raj Kumar Bartia, Pradi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.2584 GA No.2585 APOT No.417 WP No.475 of of of of 2013 2013 2013 2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION].& ORS Versus RAVINDRA KAMALAKANT SUKLA @ RAVINDRA K. SUKLA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 24th January, 2014. For Appellants : Mr.S.B. Saraf, with Mr.Md.T.M.Siddiqui,Advocates For Respondents : Mr.S.N. Bhattacharjee with Mr.Amritalal Chatterjee,Advocates The Court : After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the grounds made in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay. Accordingly, the application, being GA No.2584 of 2013, for condonation of delay is allowed. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2012 passed by sister Banerjee, J. by which the following order was passed: The impugned orders cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.1079 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.CEMEGRA BALLS (INDIA) LTD.& ANR. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOL IV COMMISSIONERATE, & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 24th January, 2014. Appearance : Mr.S.Dasgupta, Adv.Mr.Soumyajit Dasgupta, Adv.Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.The Court : Challenging an action of the authorities to pass an order without supplying the copy of the documents relied upon by the authorities, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The writ petition stood dismissed and the order of dismissal was carried in an intra-court appeal. By order dated 17.05.2011 the Division Bench set aside the said order and directed the respondents to supply the documents as asked for in the letter dated 23.03.2006 if the cost assessed 100 GMs is paid within fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Division Bench, further, direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET A.P.No.77 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NCC LIMITED Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 24th January, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra,Advocate Mr.S.Ghosh,Advocate Mr.S.Basu,Advocate Mr.S.K.Chakraborty,Advocate For State : Mr.Samrat Sen,Advocate Mr.P.Sinha,Advocate Mr.Mainak Bose,Advocate The Court : This matter was mentioned in the morning to seek a leave to move at 2 P.M.as unlisted matter and upon leave being granted in this regard, the matter is taken up at 2 P.M.In this application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for an interim order restraining the respondents from taking steps to invoke the bank guarantee. The petitioner was awarded a contract for reconstruction, remodelling and improvement of the embankment at Sundarban and adjoining areas in the district of North and Sought 24 Parganas. In terms of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.50.14 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under other provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset Shri Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Ld. Advocate submits that the Applicants are State Govt. undertaking and engaged in supply of sugar and foodgrains under Public Distribution System for the general public and normally directed for the public below poverty line. The Applicant submits that in the course of distribution of said sugar and foodgrains through distribution points at various places, they engage transport services of individual truck owners. It is his submission that the department has confirmed the demand on the ground that the Applicant had availed the GTA Services and accordingly required to discharge Service Tax. He submits that the Applicant all along been taking the services of individual truck owners in rendering the services, which issue has been s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These two miscellaneous applications are filed on 14th March, 2013 along with their appeal seeking condonation of delay of 221 days. 2. On the first date of hearing i.e. 12.07.2013, the ld. Advocate for the Applicant, has submitted that as the impugned Order-in-Original No.11/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2012 dated 07.05.2012 passed by Commr. of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Kolkata, had not been communicated/received by the Applicant, therefore, they had approached the Department for supply of a copy of the order on 7th January, 2013 for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Superintendent of Customs, declined to accept the said letter dated 7th January, 2013 and informed the Applicant that the order dated 7th May, 2012, had been dispatched to them by Speed Post. However, on persuasion by the Applicant, the Superintendent of Customs, issued an attested copy of the said impugned order on 22nd January, 2013. Consequently, the Appeal was filed on 14th March, 2013. 3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax ].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.48 of 2003 HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED Versus C.I.T., KOLKATA - II & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 22nd January, 2014. For Appellant : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.Bose, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.K. Bhowmick, Advocate The Court : This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2002 by which the contention of the Revenue was upheld and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in respect of both the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. There were naturally two appeals. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the asessee has come up in appeal. The appeal was admitted by an order dated 23rd December, 2003 on the basis of the following substantial questions of law: I. Whether the expenditure on account of municipal tax, repairs and insurance being allowable directly under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.25 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD.& ANR. Versus THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA & ANR. Appearance Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Adv.Petitioners Ms.Smita Das Dey, Adv.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 22nd January, 2014. The Court : The bone of contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the authorities have not passed a speaking order in terms of the guidelines indicated in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) LTD.versus Income Tax Officer & ORS.Reported in 259 ITR19by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in the above judgment laid down a guideline that when a notice under Section 148 of the said Act is issued, the assessee has to file a return and may also seek for reasons for issuance of the said notice. After the reasons are communicated, the assessee shall be entitled to file an objection which is required to be disposed of by a speaking order. The petitioners say that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.48 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction MANI SQUARE LTD.Versus PLANET M RETAIL LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 22nd January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Abhrojit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.for the respondent The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service. The petitioner points out that notwithstanding the exclusive forum selection clause embodied in clause 21 of the primary agreement between the parties executed on March 17, 2009, a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been carried by the respondent to the Alipore Court. It is the petitioners contention that the Alipore Court may not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Prima facie, it appears that all petitions filed under Part I of the 1996 Act pertaining to this arbitration agreement have to be carried to this Court in view of the forum selection clause in the principal agreement. The agreement between th...
Tag this Judgment!