Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 20.06.12 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas, in CC No. 247/2011 whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest on the question of maintainability. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant,an Internet Broadband Connection user since 1999, got one unlimited connection of the OPs RPS system and was connected by modem device supplied by a franchisee of the OP service provider in October 2007 . Immediately after such connection (Mobile Airtel No. 9903163414) the hackers were found to have been breaking the codes and using the connection to make the user computer a terminal server in the absence of any security provided by OP. The data card was found to be defective. The modem purchased at Rs 5000/- was not functioning . The Complainant, not being able to use the connection for fear of exposure, loss of business , besides suffering anxiety and agony. The matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2972 of 2013 With C.S.No.348 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ASHUTOSH ROY PRAFULLA KUMAR ROY & ORS.Versus Md.IQBAL KHAN & ORS.Plaintiffs/Petitioners Defendants/Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 27th January, 2014. For Plaintiffs/Petitioners : Mr.Malay Kr. Ghosh with Mr.Soumen Datta & Mr.Satrajit Chatterjee, Adversus For Defendants/Respondents : Mr.Asim Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.The case of the plaintiffs against the defendants is that they (defendants) were appointed as caretakers for two godowns at 10, Portuguese Church Street, Kolkata. These godowns measure 900 and 800 sq.ft. respectively. This contract of employment was terminated by the plaintiffs by their letter dated 20th December, 2011, but the defendants are wrongfully in possession of these two godowns and making profitable use thereof. According to the plaintiffs the current rental value is Rs.10/- per sq.ft. per diem which is abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET CP5062013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE : SPOTLIGHT TRADECo.PRIVATE LIMITED -ANDL & T FINANCE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE NADIRA PATHERYA Date : 27th January, 2014. Mr.R.Banerjee, Adv., with Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.Ms.M.Bhutoria, Adv.Mr.S.Choudhury, Adv.Mr.D.Ghosh, Adv., ..for petitioner. The Court : This application for winding up has been filed after service of statutory notice under section 434 on the company. No reply has been given to the statutory notice. In fact, the claim is based on advance made to the company by the petitioning creditor of Rs.1,95,20,000/- equipments. The agreement between the parties postulated that payments be made by instalments month by month. for purchase of certain There is no dispute with regard to payment of the fiRs.and second instalment, so also part of the third instalment. Thereafter the company defaulted in making payment on and from part of the fourth instalment and the petitioning creditor, lef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET W.P.1195 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MEDICARE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus CUSTOMs.EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBNL, EZB & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 27th January, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv.Mr.Subhrendu Halder, Adv.Mr.Debasis Nandi, Adv. for the petitioners Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Adv.Mr.S.K. Saha, Adv.The Court : The petitioner has challenged the portion of the order dated 7th October, 2013 passed by the CustoMs.Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).Kolkata, Eastern Zonal Bench by which an application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty is disposed of. By the impugned order, the CESTAT disposed of two applications namely, an application for correction and/or rectification of the mistakes as well as an application seeking waiver of the deposit of duty to maintain the appeal. So far as the fiRs.order is concerned, the petitioner is not aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.1089 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Brij Gopal Birla Versus The State of West Bengal & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 27th January 2014 Appearance: Mr.Probal Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Arnab Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Banerjee, Ld. Government Pleader Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate for the State of West Bengal The Court: Very fairly, the learned Government Pleader has realised the flaw in the impugned action taken by the Government of West Bengal. The flaw is that by their notice dated 30th September 2013, Industrial Reconstruction Department of the Government of West Bengal wrote to Mr.Brij Gopal Birla questioning his post as Managing Director of New Central Jute Mills Company Limited and posing various queries to him for his answer. Time was given to him to answer the queries by 21st October 2013. This notice is Annexure P7 at page 76 of the petition. However, on 19th October ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.200 of 2014 APOT No.42 of 2014 CS No.408 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA Versus KARTICK CHANDRA SAHA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 27th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Surhid Roychowdhury, Sr.Advocate With Mr.Asoke Jena ld. Advocate For the appellant. Mr.Malay Ghosh, ld. Advocate for the respondent. The Court :- The claim is on account of final bill and security deposit amounting to Rs.97,134.92p and Rs.1,89,581 respectively aggregating Rs.2,86,715.92. The defendant agreed to according to defendant, the pay before the His Lordship. plaintiff agreed However, not to charge any interest on the security deposit. The appellant has no answer to the interest portion on the final bill. The learned Judge considered the interest portion and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6 lac in full and final settlement of all its claim. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.203 of 2014 APOT No.409 of 2011 CS No.227 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MIGHTY METALS (P) LTD.& ANR. Versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 27th January, 2014. Appearance: Mr.G.S.Gupta, ld. Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, ld. Advocate for the respondent. The Court :- This appeal was kept pending since 2011. The appellants did not take any step in the appeal. The matter appeared before us on December 12, 2013 when we dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed an application for recall on the misconception, it was dismissed for default. We dismissed the said application. The appellant has come up again with this application for recall of the order dated December 12, 2013 coupled with a prayer for condonation of delay. The appellants would contend, they were under misconception, the appeal was to be admitted and direction for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET CP No.357 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: ARNEJ.CREATION & HOTEL PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus KAVITA ARNEJ.HOTELS PVT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date: 27th January, 2014 Appearance Mr.K.K. Thakkar, Adv.with Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.Mr.S.N. Pandey, Adv.Ms.Shanta Mitra, Adv.The applicants herein seek sanction of scheme of arrangement by demerger. Four objections have been raised by the Central Government. The fiRs.objection is with regard to accounting standard to be maintained by the two demerger companies. The accounting standard 14 is applicable in case of scheme for amalgamation but not so in respect of scheme of arrangement of demerger or merger. Therefore, accounting standard 14 is not required to be maintained by the applicant companies. An undertaking has, however, been given on behalf of the applicant companies that the accounting standard necessary to be maintained in cases of demerger will be maintained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA NO.2470 OF2013WITH CS NO.258 OF2008IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TECHNO SHOP PVT.LTD.Versus PUNJAB & SIND BANK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 27th January, 2014. Mr.A.Mitra, Mr.S.Senappear. The Court : None comes to oppose this application for confirmation of the report of the Commissioner dated 28th June, 2013 determining mesne profits. Directions were made in this application on 27th August, 2013. When no affidavit in opposition was filed the application was mentioned by the plaintiff and is thereafter appearing today as Motion Adjourned (Unopposed). The decree is dated 18th December, 2012. The mesne profit determined by the learned Commissioner is from 20th December, 2008 till 31st July, 2012. The lease was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with effect from 20th December, 2008. A fresh lease was executed between the parties on and from 1st August, 2012. Mesne profit has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET ALP NO.1 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MORE-ROYCHOUDHURY & ASSOCIATES NIRMAN UDYOG [P].LTD.Versus ARUN KUMAR AGARWALLA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 27th January, 2014. Mr.S.Dutta, Mr.D.More, Ms.S.Basufor petitioner. Mr.R.K.Guptafor respondent no.9. Mr.S.Roy Chowdhury, Mr.A.Banerjeefor respondent no.10. The Court : The petitioners in this application, as plaintiffs, in 2008 filed a suit against the respondents herein, being Title Suit No.108 of 2008 before the Second Court of the Learned Civil Judge [Senior Division]., Chinsurah at Hooghly. The petitioners want transfer of that suit to this High Court, on this application under Section 13 of the Letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that suit the plaintiffs wanted cancellation of the transfer of a property by the fifth to eighth defendants to the fiRs.to fourth defendants. The petitioners herein, as plaintiffs fi...
Tag this Judgment!