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.
Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Dr. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Jagannath Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order No. 30, dated, 14.11.12 in CDF / Unit-I/ Case No. 99/ 2012 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest against the OPs with cost. The complaint case , in brief, was as follows: The complainant Dr. J.R. Banik , a senior citizen, obtained one Mediclaim Policy from the OP , i.e, National Insurance Company Ltd. in the year 2007. During the validity of the policy, the Complainant became sick with brain haemorrhage and was treated in the R.N. Tagore International Centre for Cardio Vascular Science and remained hospitalized for the period from 31.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 and was, thereafter, discharged from hospital on payment of Rs. 87,773/- . The claim for reimbursement from the OP insurance company was lodged on 09.06.2008. The OP Insurance Company proposed to pay Rs. 64,360/- with deduction of Rs. 23,373/- which action of...
M/S. Premier Iron and Steel Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. This is an Application filed by the Applicant seeking waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.4,08,058.72 and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant submits that during the period, May,2005 to August,2005, they had availed the CENVAT Credit on the input namely, pig iron, on the basis of the invoices issued by a dealer namely, M/s. Dankuni Steels Ltd., Howrah. The CENVAT Credit was denied to them on the ground that the dealers invoice, even though, contained all other particulars of the manufacturer, but failed to incorporate in the respective manufacturers invoice numbers. He submits that, responding to the objection raised by the Department, they have collected a letter from the Registered Dealer showing the respective invoice numbers of the manufacturer, which was not initially mentioned in the dealers invoice. He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the issue on...
Regent Hirise Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ashish Kumar Ghora
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Mrs. Mridula Roy, Ld. Member: The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 24.12.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Unit-I, Kolkata, in Case No. 463 of 2009 allowing the same on contest with cost directing the Ops to pay a sum of `50,000/- for the damage of the car of the complainant and to pay a sum of ` 30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay `10,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d. an interest @ 9% per annum would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the Ops have preferred the instant Appeal. The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that he purchased a flat at 3rd floor of a building situated at Premises No. 7, Canal Street, Kolkata-700014 along with a car parking space at the ground floor of the said building at a consideration of ` 23,03,2...
M/S. Bhagwandas Vyapar Udyog Limited the New India Assurance Company L ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata in Case No. 101/2010. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the case on contest but without any cost. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant is that it was the registered owner of a Taxi bearing no. WB-04C-0909 and it was covered under insurance of the OP Insurance Company up to 2004 of a sum assured of Rs.3,20,000/-. On 12.02.2004, the said Taxi was in the custody of one Sanjoy Kumar Chowdhury, which was plied by one Driver, namely, Gopal Yadav. But, on 12.02.2004, the said Taxi was not handed over till midnight by the said Driver and the said Driver could not be traced out. Accordingly, one missing diary was lodged on 13.02.2004 at Bhowanipore P.S. Subsequently, the said Driver returned back without the Taxi, but could not give the exact...
Dr. Animesh Baruah and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
I.P. Lal, J. 1. These Appeals are filed against the Revision Order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case in brief are that a show cause notice was issued to the Appellants for their failure to get registration with proper Central Excise authorities and discharged the Service Tax on their activity of renting of immovable property to their tenant. The Ld.Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 06.04.2009 confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.2,62,650/- for the period June, 2007 to June, 2008 and interest of Rs.17,500/- only. He however noted that as soon as the assessee received the Notice and the matter was clarified by the department they got themselves registered and paid their entire Service Tax liability with interest on 16.09.2008 and therefore arrived on the conclusion that there were reasonable cause for their failure of not taking registration and non-payment of Service Tax for the...
Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Deputy Service Manager and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.422 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to replace the machine in question without taking any transportation charges with the new machine of same description. The complainant was directed to pay 25% of that product to the OPs. The OPs were further directed, jointly and severally, to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default the amount will carry interest @ 9% till realisation. 2. The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short, is that he purchased one front loading washing machine having brand name Whirlpool AVM 501 (5 kg) Professional on 13/09/08 at the price of Rs.14,500/- from M/s Great Eastern Trading Company who was the dealer of the respondent company. The machine had a warranty o...
Amar Nath Sharma Vs. Tulsi Purkait
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: 1. This appeal u/s 27A of the C. P. Act is directed against the order no.37 dated 30/07/13 passed by the Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in EA No.55/2010 recording that the Execution Case was disposed of on full satisfaction. The Complaint Case No.25 of 2009 was allowed on contest directing the OP to handover the printed copies of books to the Complainant within 30 days from date. The OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, in default the OP shall pay penalty of Rs.25/- per day from the date of default till the compliance of the order. The Learned District Forum in the impugned order in connection with EA 55 of 2010 recorded that the litigation cost and compensation were paid. It was further recorded that vide order no.36 the Dhr was at liberty to take the copies of books and if not received the Jdr shall take back the same and ke...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Quitto Exim Pvt. Ltd. Represented by B.L ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 42 of 2009 allowing the case and directing the OP to make payment of the balance amount with usual interest except the sum deposited towards TDS and a sum of Rs.2,76,377.49 already paid by pay order and receipt by the complainant on 17/10/08, if entire fixed amount is not attached with Income Tax Department as against complainant company, namely, Quitto Exim Pvt. Ltd. The OP was further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default interest will accrue @ 9% p.a. till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the complainant company had a fixed deposit of Rs.3,48,957.49 for the period of one year on 15/02/06. On 26/07/06 the complainant company approached the Bank for premature withdrawal. The B...
M/S S. A. I. L. (Rsp) Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
D. M. Misra, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No39(72)CE-11A/89-Collr.16/91 dated 30.12.91 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of difference in the production figures as reflected by the Appellant in their Annual Financial Accounts (Annual Statistics) for the year, 1987-88 and the figures of production shown in their monthly RT-12 Returns, the show-cause notice was issued proposing recovery of duty of Rs.41,18,398/- and for imposing penalty under various provisions as was in existence at the relevant time alleging removal of manufactured goods without payment of duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand observing that the difference in quantity between the production figures as shown in their Annual Financial Accounts (Annual Statistics) and in their RT-12 Returns, were removed clandestinely by the Appellant without payment of duty and imposed penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs u...
M/S. Mccpta India Corp. Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, H ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.2.25 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset Shri S.N.Sinha Mahapatra, Ld.Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e. January, 2005 to September, 2005 they have paid Service Tax on GTA Services after availing benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. The benefit of the said Notification was disallowed to them on the ground that they could not place documents evidencing declaration of non-availment of benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and the benefit of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 from the respective GTA Service providers. The Ld.Advocate submits that even though they have specifically pleaded before the Ld.Commissioner that they are in possession of these declarations, but the demand was confirmed against them without verification of the documents. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »