Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (ORIGINAL SIDE) Present: The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.2927 of 2013 with W.P.No.813 of 2013 CHATTER SINGH BAID & ORS.versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.For the petitioners : Mr.Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Atish Ghosh For the Respdt. Nos.3 to 6 : Mr.Ranjan Bachwat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Saikat Roy Chowdhury, Mr.S.M.Saha Heard on : 24.01.2014, 07.02.2014, 14.02.2014, 21.02.2014, 21.02.2014, 28.02.2014, 07.03.2014, 22.08.2014, 05.09.2014, 07.11.2014, 14.11.2014. 05.12.2014 Judgment on : 24th December, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- This writ application is preferred against the judgment of the Ld. Tribunal dated 14th June, 2013 in Appeal No.13/11. The Appellate Tribunal by the said judgment and order upheld the award dated 4th February, 2011 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator in dispute case No.19/RC/S/2010. The writ petition No.1 is claiming to be the Chairman of the Woodburn Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited. One East End Apartment Co-ope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak W.P.No.942 of 2014 Kingfisher Airlines Limited & ORS.versus Union of India & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Pal, Sr.Advocate Mr.Siddharta Mitra, Sr.Advocate Ms.Mousumi Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Soumitra Dutta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the R.B.I : Mr.Utpal Bose, Sr.Advocate Ms.Suchismita Chatterjee (Ghosh).Advocate Mr.Malay Kr. Ghosh, Advocate Hearing concluded on : December 18, 2014 Judgment on : December 24, 2014 Hirak Mitra, Sr.Advocate Rishad Medora, Advocate Prantik Gharai, Advocate Prantar Basu Chowdhuri, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The writ petitioners were declared as wilful defaulters by the Grievance Redressal Committee on declaration of Wilful Defaulter of the United Bank of India by its Order dated September 1, 2014. This decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee of United Bank of India is under challenge in this writ petition. Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side GA2865of 2013 CS331of 2013 Sanjay Jain -vs.Raj Kumar Saha & ORS.Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the applicant : Mr.Rajeev Kr. Jain, Adv.Mr.Rahul Ginodia, Adv.For respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.Subrata Kr. Roy Karmakar, Adv.Heard On : 27th August and 19th September, 2014 Judgment On : 24th December, 2014 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) In a suit for money decree for Rs.64,81,982/- as also declaration and injunction, the petitioner has filed the present application for the following interim reliefs:(a) An order of injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from realising money collected on account of the said film titled Black Mmail from any of the other defendants/respondents and/or if already realised from using the same till such time the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner in respect of the said film is settled; (b) An order of injunction be made restraining the defendants/respondent Nos.5, 6,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Nadira Patherya G.A.No.404 of 2009 G.A.No.1893 of 2009 E.C.185 of 2008 Prem Lal Jain Versus Smt. Chhabi Dey & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv., Mr.Priyankor Saha, Adv., For the Respondents : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Heard on :18.02.09, 25.02.09, 26.02.09, 18.03.11, 01.04.11, 18.04.11, 02.05.11, 06.06.11, 20.06.11, 21.06.11, 04.07.11, 08.07.11, 22.07.11, 29.07.11, 08.08.11, 11.08.11, 12.08.11, 18.08.11, 25.08.11, 01.09.11, 09.09.11, 26.09.11, 01.11.11, 03.11.11, 11.11.11, 18.11.11, 21.11.11. 25.11.11 & 28.11.11. Judgment on : 24th December, 2014. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv., Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Moloy Kumar Ghosh, Sr.Adv., Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv., Asim Kumar Kundu, Adv., Paritosh Singh, Adv., A.K.Pandey, Adv.Patherya J. : This is an application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by two of the judgment debtors seeking to set aside the award dated 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE G.A.No.1420 of 2014 ITAT No.41 of 2014 M/S.Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Kolkata. WITH G.A.No.1735 of 2014 ITAT No.59 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-IV Vs M/S.Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 23rd December, 2014. Mr.Nageswar Rao, Adv.with Mr.Avra Majumder, Adv Md.Nizamuddin, Adv.The Court : These two appeals being ITAT No.41 of 2014 and ITAT No.59 of 2014 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been preferred by the assessee and the revenue respectively against order dated 30th December, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.701/Kolkata/2011 relating to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee paragraph-8 of sought its stay formulation application, of questions while the mentioned revenue in wanted formulati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.1246 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE TARUN MONDAL & ORS.VERSUS AXIS BANK LIMITED & ORS.BEFORE: The Honble Justice DEBANGSU BASAK Dated, the 23rd December, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.Ms.Runi Chakraborty, Adv.For the PetitioneRs.Mr.V.Raja Rao, Adv.Ms.A.Rao, Adv.For the respondent no.3. The Court:- Workers of the respondent no.3 has assailed an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The order of the District Magistrate impugned is dated September 24, 2014. By such order, the District Magistrate has allowed police assistance to a secured creditor to enforce a security interest under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mr.Joy Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the District Magistrate did not take into account the parameters laid down under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in deciding the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Mr.Justice Ashis Kumar Chakraborty A.P.O.No.263 of 2014 C.P.No.230 of 2014 Globe Forex and Travels Limited versus Siddharth Sett For the Appellant : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate Mr.Rishad Medora, Advocate Mr.Soorjya Ganguli, Advocate Mr.Rishav Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Srenik Singhivi, Advocate Mr.Shubradip Roy, Advocate Heard on : December 5, 17 and 18, 2014 Judgment on : December 23, 2014 ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. I have the proud privilege to go through the well versed judgment and order of my esteem colleague My Lord justice Ashis Kumar Chakraborty. With deepest regard I have for His Lordship, and with all humility, may I say, I could not convince myself to agree with His Lordships ultimate decision on the issue. His Lordships appreciation of factual scenario is commendable and would need no repetition. So is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Mr.Justice Ashis Kumar Chakraborty APO218of 2014 And WP1190of 2014 Swapan Kumar Das & ORS.versus Biswajit Maji & Anr. APO219of 2014 And WP1190of 2013 M/S.Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Biswajit Maji & ORS.APO256of 2014 And WP1190of 2013 Bijoy BeSr.& ORS.versus Biswajit Maji & Anr. Appearance: Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate Mr.Anubhav Sinha, , Advocate, Ms.Sanchita Barman Roy, Advocate ..For ECL Mr.Partha Ghosh, Advocate . for Respdt. Writ Petitioner Mr.Anindya Lahiri, Advocate Mr.Shamik Chatterjee, Advocate .For Respondent writ petitioner Mr.Arunava Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Soumya Majumdar, Advocate Mr.Sunny Nandy, Advocate Mr.Prateep Bera, Advocate Mr.Ricky Rai, Advocate .For Swapan Das & Ors Md.Ashraf Ali, Advocate .For CBI Mr.Subrata Ganguly, Advocate For added Respondents 12, 13 & 14 Heard On:- December 18, 2014. Judgement On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO No.38 of 2014 GA No.514 of 2014 WP No.189 of 2012 THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Versus MIGMA PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO No.43 of 2014 GA No.3697 of 2013 WP No.189 of 2012 JAYESH K. VORA(HUF) & ORS.Versus MIGMA PVT.LTD.& ANR. APO No.165 of 2014 WP No.188 of 2012 THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Versus MALTI DEVI BANKA BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 22nd December, 2014. For Appellant : Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Tanushree Dasgupta, Advocate (in APO No.38 of 2014) For Appellant : Mr.Achintya Banerjee, Advocate Mr.R.N.Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.D.N.Mukherjee, Advocate (in APO No.43 of 2014) ) For Appellant : Mr.Aloke Kr. Ghosh, Advocate (APO No.165 of 2014) For Respondent: Mr.L.C.Behany, Sr.Advocate The Court : These three appeals are taken up together as all the appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 25th July, 2013. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S. No.577 of 1987 Hindusthan Motors Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. For the Plaintiff : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Advocate Ravi Kapur, Advocate R. Dutt, Advocate Debraj Bhattacharya, Advocate Jeevan Ballav Panda, Advocate For the Defendants : Mr. Pradip Kr. Ghosh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Moloy Kr. Ghosh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Swapan Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. A. Gangopadhyay, Advocate Mr. S. Dasgupta, Advocate Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate Hearing concluded on : December 02, 2014 Judgment on : December 22, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.The plaintiff claims a money decree against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a contract of insurance. According to the plaintiff, it had entered into two several contracts of insurance both dated April 1, 1986 with the defendant nos. 1 and 2 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff was indemnified for loss and damages caused, i...
Tag this Judgment!