Kolkata Court February 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.
Mr. Soroj Tulsian, Ad Vs. ...for Petitioning Creditor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.511 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S SKY MOBILES PVT LTD -ANDM/S.SDA FORWARDERS PVT LTD . BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 21st February, 2014. Mr.Supratim Laha, Ms.Soma Rai, Mr.Soroj Tulsian, Advs...for petitioning creditor Ms.Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Adv...for the company The Court : This application has been filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioning creditor is a forwarding and clearing agent and had rendered services to the company by delivering its consignments for a fee. Bills were raised in respect of the delivery effected but no payment made. Therefore notice under Section 434 was issued on 8th April, 2013. The said statutory notice was received but no reply was given thereto. Part payment of Rs.50,000/- has been made. After issuance of the statutory notice some correspondence was exchanged between the parties. Sums due and payable by the company to the petitioning creditor...
Akhtar HossaIn and ors. Vs. the Board of Wakf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA197OF2014WITH WP48of 1999 AKHTAR HOSSAIN & ORS.Versus THE BOARD OF WAKF BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 21st February, 2014. Mr.Bibek Jyoti Basu, Advocate Mr.N.Haque, Advocate .for Petitioners Mr.N.Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.Anjan Banerjee, Advocate .for Respondents 4,5 & 6 Mr.A.Mohanti, Advocate Ms.Esha Banerjee, Advocate for Applicant/Respondent The Court :- This application for addition of party is at the instance of two applicants, viz. Md.Qamruzzaman and Abdul Wahab. The affidavit accompanying the application is sworn by Md.Qamruzzaman. Although the application for addition of party is not opposed by Mr.Basu, learned advocate representing the writ petitioneRs.it is opposed by the learned advocate for the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition (opposite parties 8 & 9 in the application).It has been brought to my notice by him that Md.Qamruzzaman along with three others had fi...
Hahnemann Laboratory Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mr. Ajoy Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET CC No.91 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Contempt) HAHNEMANN LABORATORY LTD.& ORS.Versus Mr.AJOY AGARWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 21st February, 2014. Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Ms.Iti Dutta, Mr.Arup Chatterjee, Ms.Priti Jain for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sudip Deb, Mr.A.K. Gandhi for the contemner/respondent. The Court : By order dated 14th February, 2014 Mr.A.K. Gandhi, Advocate was appointed Special Officer to destroy the existing packagings of the alleged contemner/respondent. A report has been filed by the Special Officer wherefrom it appears that all packagings and stickers as enclosed with the report have been destroyed by fire. Report filed by the Special Officer be kept on record. In this contempt application violation has been alleged of orders dated 19th February, 2010 and 8th April, 2010 which were confirmed by order dated 3rd February, 2012. By the said orders the alleged contemner/respondent was restrained from infringing the l...
Smt. Saili Ghose and ors. Vs. Debapriya Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Present : The Honble Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt February 21, 2014 GA703of 2013 CS1147of 1947 Smt. Saili Ghose & ORS.versus Debapriya Sen & ORS.Mr.H.P.Basu, Advocate for the petitioners The Court :- The supplementary affidavit filed in Court today by the learned Advocate for the petitioners be kept on record. It may be recorded that the affidavits of service have already been filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners as submitted by the said learned Advocate. It appears from the submissions made in the application that the properties in question belong to a certain deity i.e.Sr.Sr.Ishwar Gokul Chandra Jew as mentioned in the petition. The petitioners have stated in the application that the properties in question are entirely occupied by the tenants and municipal taxes levied by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation far exceeds the annual rent received from such properties and there is almost no income for the said deit...
Amit Kumar Dutta Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.483 of 2013 CA No.512 of 2013 CP No.91 of 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : NATOBAR DUTTA PROPERTIES P. LTD.(IN LIQN.) AND AMIT KUMAR DUTTA VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 21st February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Arindam Moitra, Adv..for petitioneRs.Mr.Mohit Gupta, Adv.Mr.S.Ghosh, Adv.with Mr.S.Ray, Adv.for Shib Sankar Dey. Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv., Mr.Debasish Ghosh, Adv.for Mr.Amit Kumar Dutta. Ms.Smita Das De, Adv..for Official Liquidator. The Court :-By this application the petitioner seeks a direction on the Official Liquidator to remove persons from the second floor of premises No.14 A, Amritalal Bose Street, Kolkata-700005. The said reliefs have been sought on the basis of the order dated 20th February, 2013. The said property at 14 A and 14 B, Amritalal Bose Street, Kolkata700005 belonged to the company (in liquidation) and the Official Liquiator was direct...
M/S. Ambika Nahar Exports and anr Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET CUSTA No.21 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.AMBIKA NAHAR EXPORTS & ANR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 21st February, 2014. Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.B.P.Pal, Adv.for Appellant Ms M. Bhargava, Advocate for the Respondent The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 14.7.2006 by which the learned CustoMs.Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata directed the assessee to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of pre-deposit. It is not in dispute that such order for pre-deposit could not have been made except in accordance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1963. Mr.Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the deposit contemplated under section 129E of the Customs Act can be directed only in those cases where the duty or interest or penalty has been levied in respect of the goods which are n...
Sikha Kundu Choudhury and ors. Vs. the C.E.S.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.130 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SIKHA KUNDU CHOUDHURY & ORS.Versus THE C.E.S.C.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 21st February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Biswanath Chatterjee, Advocate for petitioners Mr.Somnath Bose, Advocate for CESE LTD.Mr.Chittaranjan Ghosh, Advocate for the State The Court : In this writ petition, complaint of the petitioners is over installation of an electricity meter for the purpose of giving supply to the Respondent No.6, who, it appeaRs.is the tenant in respect of a portion of premises no.162, B.B.Ganguly Street, Kolkata 700 012. Affidavit of service has been filed in this proceeding. From such affidavit, I find that service has been effected on the private respondent. No one, however, appears on his behalf. The stand of C.E.S.C.Limited is that they have installed the meter on a common meter board in a portion of the Premises No.162,B.B.Ganguly Street, Kolkata 70...
M/S. J.K.S. Fibre Glass Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. These Applications are filed by M/s. J.K.S. Fibre Glass Pvt.Ltd., i.e. Applicant No.1 seeking waiver of (i) pre-deposit of Rs.4,85,271/-, interest (unquantified) and equivalent amount of penalty and (ii) duty of Rs.54,884/-, interest (unquantified) and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the Appilcant by the Order-in-Originals both dated 31.12.2008 and upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). 3. At the outset Shri K.P.Dey, Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed their Appeals for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they did not make pre-deposit of Rs.8.00 Lakh. It is the contention that the Applicant deposited Rs.3.00 Lakhs and Rs.54,884/- in pursuance to the impugned Stay Order. 4. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue does not dispute the duty payment. 5. After hearing both sides for some time I am of the view that the Appeal itself can be disposed of at this st...
Sankar Bakshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Shillong
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
1. Vide Order No.SO/71522/2013 dated 20.12.2013, the Appellant was directed to deposit 10% of the penalty imposed and report compliance today, i.e.on 21.02.2014. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that he has no information about the deposit of the said amount. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that since the Appellant has not complied with the direction of predeposit, the Appeal be dismissed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. I find that the Applicant has not complied with the direction of predeposit, vide Order No. SO/71522/2013 dated 20.12.2013. Consequently, the Appeal is liable for dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal dismissed....
Central Inland Water Transport Corp. Ltd. Vs. Lots Shipping Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
AP No.222 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORP. LTD.Versus LOTS SHIPPING LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 20th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Tilok Bose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.The Court : Though a point of limitation has been taken and it is evident that the petitioner has approached the Court after substantial delay, yet it is necessary that immediate steps be taken to assess the worth of the two barges and sell them, if possible, so as to arrest any further liability being incurred by the barges being uselessly berthed in Jamnagar. The petitioner had let out several vessels to the respondent. The two barges which form the subject-matter of the present proceedings were let out in or about 2005 and, according to the respondent, the petitioner was given delivery of the barges in 2009 or 2010 at Jamnagar itself. The petitioner claims that the agreements provided that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »