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.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Anjan Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.461 of 2014 With C.S.No.388 of 1978 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.Versus ANJAN GUPTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 19th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Promit Ray, Adv.MRS.Swapna Mitra, Adv. for the plaintiff The Court: On the death of the sole defendant the plaintiff attempted to find out the heirs and legal representatives of the sole defendant. The plaintiff filed an application being G.A.No.461 of 2014. Such application was disposed of by an order dated April 4, 2011, requiring the plaintiff to issue advertisements in English and Hindi daily newspapers circulated in Kolkata seeking particulars as to the heirs of the defendant. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to prosecute the suit in accordance with law, including, by taking recouRs.to Order XXII Rule 4A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff published advertisements in terms of the order dated April...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
ORDER SHEET CP NO.436 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : RE: M/S.BRAND WAGON (MEDIA) PVT.LTD.AND NIRMAL DAGA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 19th February, 2014. MR.KULDIP MALLICK, MR.D.TIWARI,ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONING CREDITOR MR.SUDIP DEB, MR.K.A.BHADHURI,ADVOCATES FOR COMPANY The Court : This winding up application has been filed for price of goods sold and delivered. The work order was issued on 2nd June, 2011 by the company to the petitioning creditor. It involved printing and installation of sun packs and one of the terms and conditions of the work order was that after installation of sun packs, the same would be validated by the officials of the company and within sixty days from the date of installation payments would be made. The work was not found to be satisfactory and an e-mail in this regard was sent by the principal Camellia Group to the company on 20th June, 2011. This e-mail was forwarded by the company...
P.Sen (Engineering) Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S. Banwarilal Pasari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2299 of 2013 APO.T.No.361 of 2013 C.S.No.142 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE P.SEN (ENGINEERING) PVT LTD Versus M/S.BANWARILAL PASARI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 19th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Adv.Mr.D.Mitra, Adv.Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.and Ms.Debjani Mitra, Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Adv.and Mr.Arif Ali, Adv.The Court : The appeal is directed against an order dated 5th July, 2013 passed by brother Soumen Sen, J by which the application made by the appellant for substitution in place and stead of the defendant No.11 and for leave to file a written statement was disposed of by allowing the prayer for substitution. However, the prayer of the appellant to file a written statement was refused. The learned Trial Court directed that, the written statement filed by the original defendant No.11, name...
Poddar Sons Ex.L Private Limited Vs. C.i.T., Kolkataiii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.433 of 2014 I.T.A.No.98 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PODDAR SONS EX.L PRIVATE LIMITED Versus C.I.T., KOLKATA-III BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 19th February, 2014. Appearance : Mr.D.K. Shome, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.K. Ganguly, Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.B. Saraf, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgement and order dated 15th May 2010 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee upholding the views of the CIT (appeals) who had upheld the views of the assessing officer refusing to allow deduction of a sum of Rs.37,33,527/- on the ground that the assessee did not deduct tax at source for the said expenses even till-date. Hence Rs.37,33,527/- is added back to the total income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2005-06 as per provisi...
M/S. Perfect Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Servi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.59.69 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the ld.Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the order was passed ex-parte by the ld. Commissioner. He submits that on similar circumstances for the earlier period, this Tribunal has remanded the matter for re-consideration of the issues vide Order No.S-422/A-180/Kol/2013 dated 01.07.2013. 3. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue has been directed by the Bench to examine the facts as to whether the present case is similar to the one decided by this Tribunal, in their own case vide Order dated 01.07.2013. 4. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue has confirmed that the facts and circumstances involved in the present case are similar to the one passed by this Tribunal in remanding the case for denovo a...
Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Classic Super Construction and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.454 of 2014 APOT No.72 of 2014 AP No.279 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date : 18th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Ms.Sayani Mondal and Mr.R.N. Ghosh, ld. Advocates for the appellant. The Court :- All along, the respondents are not represented. One asset had already been sold after obtaining the order of confirmation from the learned Single Judge. Second attempt, however, failed that resulted in the for the judgment and order impugned. Mr.Bose, learned Counsel appearing appellant, would contend, after publication of sale notice in the newspaper the purchaser has come to purchase the second asset. The appellant wants to sell two assets; one is lying with the Receiver and the other is lying with Bharat Engineering Body BuildeRs.who are holding possession for unpai...
Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.401 of 2014 W.P.No.19 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.MAHENDRA KUMAR SUTAR Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 18th February, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Arijit Chatterjee, Adv.For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharadwaj with MRS.Santa Mitra, Adversus This is an application listed at the instance of respondent no.4 for modification of the order dated 9th January, 2014 by which the said respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the application being Annexure P-14 to the writ petition by a reasoned order within three weeks from the date of communication of the order. According to the respondent, the proper authority to consider the prayer for provisional release made in the said application is the respondent no.2. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that the prayer for provisional release can only be considered provided the resp...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. Amit Kumar Mohanta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
AP No.979 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LIMITED Versus AMIT KUMAR MOHANTA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 18th February, 2014. Appearance: Ms.S.Saha, Adv.The Court : Since the respondents are not represented despite previous service and since the petitioner says that a sum in excess of Rs.14 lakh is due only on account of defaulted instalments, there will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (b) of the petition which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the assets described at paragraph 5 of the petition till such time that the receiver takes possession thereof. Mr.Sanatan Panja, Advocate, of Bar Association Room No.17 is appointed receiver to take possession of the assets covered by the agreement. The receiver will be paid an initial remuneration of 1200 GM and all expenses for the receivers travel, accommodation and the like will be borne by the petitioner and a...
Amrit Fresh Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Bablu Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
ORDER SHEET APO3072013 EC2882012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMRIT FRESH PVT.LTD.Versus Sr.BABLU GHOSH & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date : 18th February, 2014. Mr.S.N.Mookerjee, senior Advocate Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Ray, Advocate Mr.R.K.Rai, Advocate Mr.Anunoy Basu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Pal, Advocate Mr.S.Sarkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. The Court : Medow Feed Specialties Limited, the respondent no.2, entered into an agreement with the respondent no.1 for supply of milk. Accordingly, the respondent no1 supplied milk to the respondent no.2 and in the process a sum of Rs.22 lakhs and odd became due and payable. Medow Feed did not pay. As per the arbitration clause, the claimant approached the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator published an ex parte award in favour of the respondent no.1 as Medow Feed did not choose to appear. The Arbitrator pub...
Shyama Prasad Ghose Vs. the Learned Legal Remembrancers and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.126 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHYAMA PRASAD GHOSE Versus THE LEARNED LEGAL REMEMBRANCERS & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 18th February, 2014 Mr.Rabi Prosad Mookherjee, Advocate with Ms.Jolly Chakrabarti, Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Manas Kumar Sadhu, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 till May, 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 that the petitioner had been an empanelled advocate for nearly 8 yeaRs.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 s...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »