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.
Md. Faiyazul Haque and ors. Vs. Durga Prasad Shaw @ Durga Prasad Jaisw ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2907 of 2013 With CS No.205 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Md.FAIYAZUL HAQUE & ORS.Versus DURGA PRASAD SHAW @ DURGA PRASAD JAISWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 28th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Saptanshu Banerjee, Adv.Mr.R.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Jishnu Saha, Adv.The Court : This is an application for recalling of an ex parte decree dated 22nd January, 2013. Mr.Jishnu Saha, learned counsel representing the defendant submits that the defendant was not even informed by his erstwhile advocate namely Mr.Sandip Kr. Tiwary that the matter is appearing in the ex parte board and the said counsel would not represent the defendant in the proceeding. Shorn of all the details, it appears from the pleadings that Mr.Sandip Kr. Tiwary has acted carelessly in not apprising the Court that he had received no instruction from the defendant and, as such, he would not be in a position to represent the defendant. Once a ...
Trinath Sahapetitioner Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.Respondents
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.83 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TRINATH SAHA Versus CESC LTD.& ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 28th February, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Gopal Chandra Ghose with Mr.J.Kaunda, Adversus For Respondents : Mr.Rajiv Lall with Ms.Ankita Lall, Adversus Affidavit of Service is filed. I find that notices were sent to the private respondents by Speed Post on 1st February, 2014 and substantial time has elapsed since the date of despatch. The writ petitioner in this proceeding is aggrieved over the location of the meter box pertaining to supply of electricity, in a room, which he claims to be his bed room. The premises in question appears to be joint property and the learned Counsel for CESC LTD.submits that the meter box is in existence in that part of the premises for a long period of time. In the event CESC LTD.finds the meter box in its present location to be threat to human l...
New India Investment Corporation Limited Vs. a I Champdany Industries ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
GA No.3472 of 2013 CS225of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE NEW INDIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS A I CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 28th February, 2014. For the petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Deb,Sr.Advocate Ms.Manju Bhuteria,Advocate Ms.Nikia Jhunjhunwala,Advocate For the defendant : Mr.Jishnu saha,Advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Chaudhury,Advocate Mr.Abhijit Guha Ray,Advocate Mkr. Syed E. Huda,Advocate The Court : - The plaintiff has filed this application for amendment of the plaint by introducing the words in paragraphs 4 and 5 namely and/or otherwise as recognized by it. The original claim in the plaint was that the plaintiff had lent and advanced various sums of money as unsecured loans in terms of the said scheme. The amendment only introduced the said words to clarify that the scheme recognized such payments. Since the said amendment is formal in nature and would not alter the original cause of action and/or change the natur...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
In The High Court At Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Present: The Honble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas. GA NO.2354 OF2009EC NO.55 OF2009CS NO.431 OF1997M/S.SUNDARLAL & SONS & ANR.v.M/S.CHATTERJEE POLK PRIVATE LIMITED Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Mr.Soumabha Ghose & Mr.A.K.Roy, advocates, for the decree-holdeRs.Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Indrajit Sarkar, advocate, for the joint administratORS.Heard on: February 28, 2014 Judgement on: February 28, 2014 The Court:- The GA No.2354 of 2009 dated August 24, 2009 has been filed by one Asim Guha Thakurata under s.47 CPC. The decree-holders instituted EC No.55 of 2009 for execution of the decree passed in the suit (C.S.No.431 of 1997) on January 4, 1999 and Asim has filed the GA questioning the executability of the decree. Asim was not a party to the suit and Mr R Sarkar appearing for Asim has submitted that Asim is not a representative of any...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan Vs. M/S. Rakshit Transport
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.3282 of 2013 ITAT No.181 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN Versus M/S.RAKSHIT TRANSPORT BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 28th February, 2014. For Appellant : For Respondent : Ms.Asha Ghutghutia, Advocate Mr.Abhrotosh Mukheree, Mr.Soumitra Chowdhury, Mr.Avra Mazumder Mr.Soumitra Mukherjee and Mr.Soumitra Mukherjee, Advocates The Court : The Assessing Officer by his order dated 29th December, 2009 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, held as follows: Considering the above discussion, I am inclined to treat the above payment as payments made to transport contractors for which the assessee is liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the I.T.Act. After giving concession for those payment where the single payment does not exceed Rs.20,000 and Rs.50,000 in an aggregate in ye...
Smt. Rekha Bhar and anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti February 28, 2014 WP850of 2013 Smt. Rekha Bhar & Anr. versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.Mr.H.Bhattacharya, Advocate with Mr.R.Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.D.Mitra, Advocate Ms.Debjani Mitra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Barin Banerjee, Advocate with MRS.Sima Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate Mr.D.Mondal, Advocate for the KMC MRS.Ashrita Chakraborty, Advocate with Ms.Aparajeeta Chakraborty, Advocate for the respondent Nos.8 and 9 The Court :- although the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for several reliefs by way of this writ petition, Mr.Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioners restricted his prayer to an order by this Court directing the Corporation authorities to consider the representation made by them on August 19, 2013 and the said letter was written by the learned Advocate to the various Municipal authoritie...
Dr. Pushpita Sahu (Basu) Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corp. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
WP No.868 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DR. PUSHPITA SAHU (BASU) Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORP. AND ORS.Appearance Mr.Sudip Deb, Adv.Ms.Sutapa Paul, Adv.Petitioner Ms.Piyali Sengupta, Adv.Ms.Suvasree Ghosh, Adv.K.M.C.Mr.Prabal Mukherjee, Adv.Private Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 27th February, 2014. The Court : The short issue canvassed by the petitioner is that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner have failed to discharge a duty cast upon them by Sections 435 and 441 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in failing to stop the private respondent No.6 from carrying on any business at a room in occupation of such private respondent at premises No.66C, Southend Park, Kolkata-700 029 despite the private respondent having no trade licence to carry on business therefrom. There is an eviction suit pending and it is the contention of the petitioner landlady that the private respo...
Mrs. Hosenara Begum Vs. Sk. Asraf Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
AP No.1048 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MRS.HOSENARA BEGUM -VersusSK. ASRAF ALI & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Anubhav Sinha, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Tapas Kumar Dey, Adv.Mr.Nirupam Sarkar, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : February 27, 2014. The Court : Two grounds have been urged by the respondent in opposing this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: first, that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of a previous petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act having been carried by the petitioner to the City Civil Court; and, that the properties over which the petitioner has obtained an order do not belong to the partnership firm that the petitioner claims to be interested in. In view of Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act, not all civil courts of original civil jurisdiction are entitled to entertain petitions under Part-I of...
Kakali Bhattacharjee Vs. the Calcutta State Transport Corporation and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
WP No.1247 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KAKALI BHATTACHARJEE Versus THE CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 27th February, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Niladri Bhattacharya, Adv.The Court : The grievance of the petitioner is that the death benefits due to the petitioner upon the demise of her husband have not been made over by the employer Corporation without there being any justifiable cause to withhold the same. When the matter was taken up on February 26, 2014, it was noticed that the deceased employee had nominated his daughter as the person entitled to receive the death benefits. The petitioner has relied on a letter issued by the daughter to the Corporation indicating that she has no objection to her mother being made over the entire proceeds. The petitioners daughter was required to be present in Court. The daughter is present and has been identifi...
Vs. Glencore Coal Queensland Pty. Ltd. and anr.Respo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
ORDER SHEET T.A.No.24 of 2014 With T. No.60 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE VISA STEEL LTD.Versus GLENCORE COAL QUEENSLAND PTY. LTD.& ANR. Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 27th February, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury & Ms.A.Bansal, Adversus By an order dated 17th April, 2012 in T.A.No.51 of 2012 with C.S.No.135 of 2012 [Visa Steel LTD.versus Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty. LTD.& Anr.]., this Court had restrained the respondents from taking any steps on the basis of the notices dated 21st March, 2012 and 10th April, 2012 or for proceeding in arbitration against the petitioner. Order was also passed restraining the respondents from proceeding with arbitration or filing of any proceeding before the English Courts on the basis of the said notices. The reasons for restraining the respondents from such proceeding were mentioned in the said order of this Court, the sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »