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.
M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three applications are filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.5.37 crores. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri T.R. Rastogi for the applicant has submitted that Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeals on the ground that the same are not maintainable being not signed by the Principal Officer but by the authorized signatory of the applicants. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that against Rs.5.37 Crores, the Department has already recovered Rs.4.57 crores by way of appropriation from the sanctioned refunds. It is his submission that the Principal Officer has not been defined either in the Central Excise (Appeal) Rules, 2001 or under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his submission that by virtue of their Board of Directors resolution dated 22 December, 2010, Mr. Shantanu Kr. Sharma had been authorized to sign all documents for the company. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that before dismissing the appeals, the applicant...
Ghanashyam Das Shah Vs. the Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.2581 of 2013 C.S.No.116 of 1998 Ghanashyam Das Shah versus The Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association For the Appellants : Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ashish Chakroborty, Advocate Mr.R.L.Mitra, Advocate Ms.Priyanka Dhar, Advocate For the Defendants : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate Mr.Amitava Das, Advocate Mr.Gaurav Khaitan, Advocate Mr.Debant Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Pritha Basu, Advocate Heard on : January 6, 2014 Judgment on : January 10, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Post commencement of trial the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint by way of the present application. Suit was for mandatory and perpetual injunction. The plaintiff claimed tenancy under the defendant in respect of 6,000 square feet in the second floor of a building situate at premises No.25, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata at a monthly rent of Rs.1,700. The plaintiff averre...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.479 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: DURGAPUR STEELS LTD.And MEGHNA VYAPAAR PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 10th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.The Court: The claim in the winding up petition is on account of money lent and advanced. The petitioner has provided the company inter corporate loan of Rs.50 lakhs vide its cheque being No.232307 dated 14th September, 2010. The company duly acknowledged receipt of the said loan by letter dated 13th September, 2010. The said loan was repayable after 120 days from 13th September, 2010 which would carry an interest of 9%. The company in discharge of its liability issued two several cheques dated 12th February, 2011 and 14th February, 2011 for Rs.25 lakhs each. The said cheques, however, were dishonoured on presentation. The petitioner/company issued a statutory notice on 12th October, 2011. In spite of the receipt of...
Saraf Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.288 of 2007 With GA No.3683 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SARAF AGENCIES PVT.LTD.Versus KANORIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 10th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.The Court : The plaintiff has filed this application for correction of the date mentioned in the middle of paragraph 11 of the original plaint where it was stated that the notice was duly served upon the defendant by registered post on 22nd May, 2007. Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that a whole-some reading of the said paragraph would show that the said date has been incorrectly mentioned as 22nd May, 2007, since on the sentence following the said line it has been stated that the defendant has received the said notice dated 22nd May, 2007 on 29th May, 2007. In my view, the said amendment is only formal in nature. Th...
Sree Sree Lakshmi Janardan Jew and ors. Vs. Manmatha Nath Mitter and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.3145 of 2013 With CS No.1687 of 1934 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREE SREE LAKSHMI JANARDAN JEW & ORS.Versus MANMATHA NATH MITTER & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 10th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Asish Chakraborty, Adv.The Court : The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that notwithstanding the order passed by the learned Single Judge in GA No.2938 of 2010 arising out of CS No.1687 of 1934 allowing discharge of Official Receiver appointed by an order dated 13th May, 1935, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is insisting for a declaration from the Official Receiver to the effect that he has been discharged. This is not the subject matter of the suit inasmuch as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is not a party to the suit. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action on the part of the Corporation in refusing to consider the application for mutation, the petitioner is not remediless. I have no...
Puran Mal Agarwala Vs. R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2103 of 2013 With CS No.102 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PURAN MAL AGARWALA Versus R. PIYARELALL IMPORT & EXPORT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 10th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Sudip Deb, Adv.Mr.Kausik Chatterjee, Adv.Mr.Ashoke Bhowmick, Adv.Mr.Kumar Gupta, Adv.Mr.Ramesh Dhara, Adv.Mr.A.G.Mukherjee, Adv.The Court: The plaintiff has filed this application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in so far as a portion of the claim is concerned, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is submitted that the plaintiff has clubbed the two claims one on account of non-supply and the other on account of short supply. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,68,950/-. The plaintiff contends in the plaint that although the plaintiff had advanced large sums of money but the defendant had failed to supply the materials and, accordingly, in view of failure o...
Netai Maity Vs. Nemai Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
AP No.1327 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NETAI MAITY Versus NEMAI MAITY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.P.P. Mukherjee, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Adv..for the respondent The Court : Two objections are taken on behalf of the respondent to this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent says that the substantive claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation and even the right to go to arbitration is time-barred. The arbitration clause is contained in a partnership deed executed in the year 1997. Ordinarily, it would be difficult to sustain an objection of limitation in respect of a claim to go to a reference pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a partnership deed. The petitioner says that though a petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was filed before the Howrah Court in the year 2010 and a contempor...
Hindusthan Construction and Commercial Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction G.A.No.2543 of 2013 C.S.No.130 of 1985 Before : The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak Hindusthan Construction & Commercial Corporation versus Union of India For the Plaintiff : Mr.Jayanto Banerjee, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Partho Sarathi Bose, Sr.Advocate Mr.SaptaRs.Roy, Advocate Heard on : January 7, 2014 Judgment on : January 10, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Defendant issued a tender for supply of tie baRs.The plaintiff participated in such tender. The plaintiff became successful in such tender and was awarded a contract. Disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to such contract. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration agreement. Disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration. The plaintiff challenged the appointment of the arbitrator before this Honble Court. Such challenge was dismissed by a judgment and order dated June 2, 1983 on the ground that the Honble Court lac...
Subhra Mukherjee Vs. M/S. Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.173 of 2013 Subhra Mukherjee versus M/S.Bengal Media PVT.LTD.For the plaintiff : Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Md.Arif Mr.Soumabha Ghose Heard on : 26.11.2013, 29.11.13, 03.12.13, 10.12.2013, 17.12.2013, 06.01.2014, 07.01.2014, 09.01.2014, Judgment on : 10th January, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the Scheduled portion of Premises No.63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata 700 016 as described in Schedules A and B to the plaint and other monetary reliefs. The owner of 5000 sq.ft. super built up area on the second floor and 120 sq. ft. area on the roof of Premises No.63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata 700 016 (hereinafter referred to as fiRs.demised portion) and 1000 sq. ft. super built up area on the ground floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as second demised portion).The plaintiff demised the said...
M/S. Ivrcl Ltd. Vs. Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
AP No.901 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.IVRCL LTD.-VersusRAMSARUP LOHH UDYOG LTD.Appearance: Mr.Sanjoy Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Ghanshyam Patra, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : January 10, 2014. The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service and despite having obtained directions for filing affidavits. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the petitioner has rendered services to the respondent and the petitioner has not been paid the bill amounting to Rs.4.10 crore. The petitioner also complains of petitioners material and machinery remaining in the factory premises of the respondent at Kharagpur. The petitioner refers to a letter dated August 27, 2011 addressed to the chairman and managing director of the respondent demanding return of the petitioners material. The petitioner has detailed the p...