Kolkata Court February 2014 Judgments
Mitali Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET WP1632014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MITALI BHATTACHARYA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014. The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1989 till May 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly 22 yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as to w...
Tag this Judgment!Tanausri Pal Chowdhuri Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET WP1582014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TANAUSr.PAL CHOWDHURI Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014. The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2004 till May 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly seven yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Fan Ltd. Vs. Parekh Aluminex Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET CC No.82 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Contempt) ORIGINAL SIDE R.D.FAN LTD.Versus PAREKH ALUMINEX LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 28th February, 2014. Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Ms.R.Kajaria, Adversus for the petitioner Mr.Shyam Sarkar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Pramit Ray, Adv.for respondent No.1 Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Aditya Kanodia, Adv.Mr.Kezer Kharawala, Adv.for respondent No.5 Mr.Aryak Dutt, Adv.for Indian Overseas Bank The Court : By order dated 20th December, 2013 Rule was issued against the alleged contemner No.1 and its director, the alleged contemner respondent No.5 which Rule was made returnable on 3rd February, 2014. On 3rd February, 2014 the alleged contemner did not appear and the only reason given was his ill health. Accordingly, the returnable date of the Rule was extended till this day. This day also the alleged contemner respondent No.5 has not appeared pursuant to the Rule issued and the only reason given is his inabi...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Md. Sami Omer and ors. Vs. Ashim Chandra Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET TA No.25 of 2014 CS No.271 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SK. Md.SAMI OMER & ORS.Versus ASHIM CHANDRA DAW & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 28th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Arnab Dutta, Adv.Mr.N.Dasgupta, Adv.Mr.D.Dey, Adv.Mr.R.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.P.Saha, Adv.Mr.C.Dutta, Adv.The Court : The plaintiffs claim to be tenants of premises No.27 and 29, Weston Street, Kolkata-700 012 (hereafter the property).under the fiRs.defendant. In this suit they claim a decree to this effect. Mr.Banerjee submits that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. Furthermore, some persons, it is alleged, have taken steps for demolition of the building and that demolition has already started. The appearing defendants i.e.defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 deny any involvement in the act. The plaintiffs seek protection of their alleged tenancy. Considering the submissions, I appoint Mr.Souvik Majumde...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit NaIn Vs. Bengal Silver Spring Projects Ltd and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.3942 of 2007 CS No.70 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AJIT NAIN Versus BENGAL SILVER SPRING PROJECTS LTD & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 28th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Sarbopriyo Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Sarnendu Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mullick, Adv.The Court: The plaintiff has filed this application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff states that this application has been necessitated in view of the disclosures made in the interlocutory proceedings. It is stated that in the affidavit in opposition to GA No.1619 of 2007 the defendant no.1 has relied upon a deed of sub-lease dated March 30, 2007 in favour of one M/S.Saini Trading Co.allegedly a partnership firm having its business at Bindu Basini Street, Calcutta 700027. It was this disclosure which resulted in this application being filed by the plaintiff. Initially an...
Tag this Judgment!Rina Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET WP1612014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RINA BANERJEE Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014. The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 till May 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly eight yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as to whet...
Tag this Judgment!L and T Finance Limited Vs. Harbinder Kaur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
GA No.434 of 2014 AP No.272 of 2013 With AP No.94 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LIMITED Versus HARBINDER KAUR & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 28th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.Mr.K.C. Garg, Adv.The Court : AP No.94 of 2013 is the hirers challenge to the arbitral award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. AP No.272 of 2013 is the finance companys post-award petition under Section 9 of the Act. GA No.434 of 2014 is the hirers application alleging that after the assets covered by the agreement were taken possession of by the finance company, they had been used and are now in a rundown condition and will not fetc.any meaningful price at a sale. The grounds for challenging the arbitral award of October 16, 2012 are twofold : first, the hirer contends that since the arbitration was held in Mumbai, the hirer was not in a position to contest t...
Tag this Judgment!Prabir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET WP1622014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRABIR CHATTERJEE Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014. The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since August 2003 till July 2011. He is aggrieved because the bills raised by him for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly eight yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent he is not entitled to the fees charged by him and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain ...
Tag this Judgment!………… Petitioner Vs. India Infoline Limited and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
A.P.No.712 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side In the matter of : THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996; And In the matter of: CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED Petitioner versus INDIA INFOLINE LIMITED & ANOTHER Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate with Jishnu Chowdhury, Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Sudip Das Gupta, Arnab Sardar, Advocates For Respondent : Mr.Anirban Ray, Advocate with Mr.Samik Kanti Chakraborty, Advocate For Proforma Respondent : Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Advocate Heard on : 22.01.2014 & 29.01.2014 Judgment on : 28th February, 2014 I.P.MUKERJI, J. This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is very interesting. It is made by Central Business Services Limited. The other parties are India Infoline Limited, the fiRs.respondent and Jain Industrial & Commercial Services Private Limited, described as the proforma respondent. The petitioner wants appointment of an arbitrato...
Tag this Judgment!Jolly Chakrabarti Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET WP1642014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE JOLLY CHAKRABARTI Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 28th February, 2014. The Court : The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2004 till May 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute empanelled advocate for nearly seven yeaRs.that the petitioner had been an In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require consideration of the bills in the light of other materials to ascertain as to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »