Kolkata Court January 2014 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.
Ambarish Dasgupta and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Companies, West Bebnga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
ORDER SHEET CP NO.259 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction LOVELOCK AND LEWES CONSULTING SERVICES PVT.LTD.AND AMBARISH DASGUPTA AND ANR. versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WEST BEBNGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 16th January, 2014. MS.MANJ.BHUTERIA,MR.RAVI ASOPA, MS.NIKITA JHUNJHUNWALA, ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONERS MS.MAMTA BHARGAVE,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS The Court : This application has been filed under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioners is that two show cause notices both dated 26th February, 2013 were issued alleging therein violation of sections 187(C) and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. Initially a show cause notice was issued under section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956 to which a reply was given. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued under section 628 for alleged false statement made in the report filed wherein it was alleged that the auditors had made a statement that the company had not granted a...
Anwar HussaIn Vs. AzizuddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
A.P.No.12 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANWAR HUSSAIN Versus AZIZUDDIN & ANR. Appearance Mr.P.P.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Bharat Bhusan, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 16th January, 2014. The Court : This is a post-award petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is no dispute that the agreement between the parties involves several apartments in Ripon Street and contains an arbitration clause. The respondents say that the respondents have received the award on September 27, 2013 and have challenged the same before this Court. The petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is due to appear, according to the respondents, on January 30, 2014. The petitioner claims that since the respondents are in possession of four flats in terms of the agreement, the respondents should not create any third party rights in respect thereof till such time that the respondents challenge to the arbitra...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri Vs. M/S Shelcon Propertyies (P) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.3069 of 2013 ITAT No.162 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI Versus M/S SHELCo.PROPERTYIES (P) LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 16th January, 2014. Ms.M.Bhargava, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv., Soumya Kejriwal, Adv.Mr.C.S.Das, Adv.for the Respondent The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19th April, 2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and allowing the claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the I.T.Act. The facts and circumstances of the case, briefly stated, are as follows : The assessee is engaged in the business of construction of housing projects. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 11th February, 2010 showing gross income of Rs....
The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Md. K ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Jagannath Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the Order No. 25 in CDF/Unit -1 /Case No. 409/2009, dated 31.08.12, of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit- I , Kolkata, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost? against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and without cost against OP No. 3. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant is the owner of a lorry vide Registration No. WB-57A-1092 which was insured by the OP insurance company being the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd under? Commercial Vehicle Package Policy No. 1506372329104084. The policy was valid for the period from 20.09.07 to 19.09.08. The said vehicle met with an accident on 05.01.2008 near the Village, Sinduria, NH-2, P.S. Barun, Aurangabad , Bihar . On 07.01.2008? the incident was reported to the nearest P.S. of Barun. The vehicle was taken by crane to one garage at Boropara, P.O. Basbaria, P.S. Mogra, Dist- Hooghly at the cost of the Complainant. The fact of acc...
M/S. Jeciem Organo Chemicals (P) Ltd Vs. Commr. of Central Excise-kolk ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2.24 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. The Ld. Consultant at the outset, submitted that Ld. Commissioner has dismissed their appeal for failure to deposit the duty and penalty as a condition to hear their appeal. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit. However, he has contended that against the total demand of Rs.2,24,019/-, they have already deposited an amount of Rs.1,30,338/-. He has submitted that the issue involves in the present case is determination of value under Section 4A of CEA, 1944, and they have a good case on merit. He prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commr. (Appeal). 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepted that the issue has not been decided on merit and he has no objection in remanding the matter to the Ld. Commr. (Appeal). 4. After hearing both sides for sometime, we find that the app...
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. Ronit Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
A.P.No.1077 A.P.No.1078 A.P.No.1079 A.P.No.1080 A.P.No.1084 A.P.No.1085 A.P.No.1086 A.P.No.1087 A.P.No.1088 A.P.No.1089 A.P.No.1104 A.P.No.1105 A.P.No.1106 of of of of of of of of of of of of of 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.-VersusRONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 15th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv.Mr.S.Chowdhury, Adv...for the petitioner Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.L.R. Mondal, Adv.for the respondent No.1 The Court: It is surprising that though advocates appearing for the fiRs.respondent company do not claim to represent the second respondent, Dilip Kundu, yet at the fiRs.suggestion of an adveRs.order against Dilip Kundu, advocates ostensibly representing the respondent company seek to object thereto. It is time that those representing litigants in court take some responsibility and do not indulge in little games, particularl...
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Ayub Idu Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
AP No.383 of 2013 AP No.384 of 2013 AP No.743 of 2013 AP No.744 of 2013 AP No.751 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus AYUB IDU KHAN & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 15th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.Ms.Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.Mr.K.K. Pandey, Adv.The Court : These five matters pertain to three agreements, all covered by an identical arbitration clause. At the initial stage, when the three petitions were moved, the petitioning finance company referred to the deeds of assignment executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, entitling the petitioner to receive the payments due to the respondents from the respondents debtors upon there being any default in payment in terms of the relevant agreements. A Receiver was appointed to ascertain from the debtors of the respondents as to whether any sum was due to the respondents. The Receivers inquiries did not reveal much. Subsequent...
Sas Investments Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.654 of 2007 With CP No.553 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF: BHARAT MARGARINE LTD.[IN LIQN.].AND SAS INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY LTD.Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 15th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.R.Bachawat, Advocate, Mr.Payan Chowdhury, Adavocate, Mr.D.N. Roy Chowdhury,Advocate and Ms.Anuva Ghosh, Advocate. for the applicant. Mr.S.Sanyal, Advocate with Mr.S.Bhanj, Advocate for the SBI. Mr.R.S.De, Advocate. for WBIDC. Mr.K.C.Garg, Advocate a. Ms.S.Agarwal, Advocate. Mrs.R.Sikdar, Advocate. for Official Liquidator. The Court : In an attempt to revive CA No.654 of 2007 has been filed by the applicant herein. The applicant is desirous of making payment to the remaining secured creditORS.namely SBI and WBIDC and un-secured creditors who may be five in number. WBIDC has, by its letter dated 26th November, 2008, sought for payment on account of principal, security expe...
Chatterjee Petrochem [Mauritius] Company Vs. West Bengal Industrial De ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.3807 OF2013WITH CS NO.461 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM [MAURITIUS].COMPANY Versus WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.& ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th January, 2014. Mr.Anindya Mitra, Mr.S.Sarkar, Mr.S.Mitra, senior advocates, Ms.M.Bhattacharya, Mr.S.Dattafor petitioner. Mr.Bimal Kumar Chatterjee, senior advocate, Mr.M.Mishra, Mr.M.K. Tiwarifor Government of West Bengal. Mr.S.K. Kapoor, senior advocate, Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Mr.S.Ginodiafor WBIDC. Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, senior advocate, Mr.J.Saha, Mr.A.Banerjee, Mr.A.Garodiafor HPL. The Court : This is an application by Chatterjee Petrochem [Mauritus].Company [CPMC].in aid of their above suit. Injunction is sought in terms of the following prayer in the petition. [b].Injunction restraining the respondents, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, from purporting to act or ...
Tata Motors Finance Limited Vs. Mohammad HussaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
AP No.1151 of 2013 AP No.1162 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED Versus MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 15th January, 2014. Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.appears The Court : The respondents are dodging the Court for a considerable period by claiming to have paid all the instalments without furnishing any accounts or the proof of payment. Since the petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.5 lakh is due and owing from the respondents to the petitioner in respect of these agreements as per accounts furnished by the petitioner to the respondents and the respondents show nothing to detract therefrom, Ms.Dipanwita Ghosh (Chowdhury).Adv., of Bar Association Room No.8, is appointed Receiver for the purpose of taking possession of either of the assets covered by the agreements. The Receiver will be paid an initial remuneration of 1000 GM and all expenses for the Receivers travel, accomm...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »