Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/195/2006 dated-28/09/2006, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Chowdhury for the applicant submitted that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but rejected their appeal as time barred. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the relevant Bill of Entry No. 263382 dated-14/12/2005, though assessed on 7/2/2006, and consequently the dues ware paid by them on 01/03/2006 to avoid demurrage etc., however, they had requested for a speaking assessment order. The Ld. Advocate further submits that in view of the Board Circular No. 16/03-CUS dated 17/03/2013, the detail speaking order was issued to them on 6th July, 2006.Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the Commr. of Customs (Appeals) on 30/08/2006, i.e., within 60 days of the communication of the Order as prescribed under Section 128 (1) of Customs Act, 1962. Therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.994 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH Versus KOLKATATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date : 31st March, 2014. For Petitioner : MR.S.SARKAR,ADVOCATE For KMC : MR.B.MUKHERJEE,ADVOCATE MR.S.BANDYOPADHYAY,ADVOCATE MRS.S.CHAKRABORTY,ADVOCATE For State: MRS.SIPRA MAJUMDER,ADVOCATE The Court : In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take steps to demolish the construction raised by the private respondent no.6 on the ground floor at premises No.82/2A Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata- 700004 as it has been found to have been raised illegally by an order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by the Special Officer (Building).Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation denying the allegations made in the writ petition submits on instruction that steps were taken and demolition was carried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA NO.2943 OF2013WITH CS NO.356 OF1994GA NO.18 OF2013GA No.117 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TANIMA GHOSH & ORS.Versus GITARANI GHOSH & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 31st March, 2014. Mr.A.Das, Mr.S.K.Ashappear. Mr.R.Ghosh, Mr.A.Banerjee, Mr.D.N. Chunder, Mr.A.Dasadhikariappear. The Court : Ms.Iram Hassan, Advocate, 5, K.S.Roy Road, Kolkata- 700 001 is appointed as the Special Officer. The bank will cancel the existing pay order upon the original being delivered to them by Mr.Ghoshs clients and issue a fresh one in the name of the newly appointed Special Officer. She will open a bank account, with the assistance of the parties in her name and deposit the Pay Order into that account. The account may be opened in State Bank of India, Kolkata High Court Special Branch, Kolkata. The Special Officer will be entitled to appropriate from the funds in her hands immediately, 600 GMs.as her initial remunera...
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.265 of 1977 Satyanarayan Pasari versus Ashok Kumar Pasari & ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Surabhi Banerjee, Advocate Heard on : March 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 31, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit was for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were brothers and the Defendant No.3 was their sister. The plaintiff was interested in the flats on the fiRs.floor on the ground floor at Premises No.4, Clyde Row, Kolkata. The plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the sole and absolute lessee of the ground floor flat and was entitled to continue in sole and exclusive occupation and possession of the same to the exclusion of the defendants. The plaintiff sought a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs possession and occup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.1182 of 2013 AP No.1317 of 2013 AP No.1353 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT LTD Versus ICORE SUPER CEMENT PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The respondent is not represented despite previous service and despite being made aware of the orders passed in the present proceedings. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.55 lakh is due under the three agreements covered by these matters only on account of defaulted instalments. Of the seven assets covered by these three matteRs.six assets are lying at Bodhjung Nagar Police Station in Agartala (West).The petitioner submits that the fiRs.respondent company apparently carried on chit fund business in Tripura and a large number of small depositors appear to have been cheated by the fiRs.respondent company. The petitioner 2 apprehends that the depositors might seek to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.431 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RANA CHATTERJEE Versus HDFC BANK LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.K. Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : The petition cannot be entertained in view of what appears from the petition itself. It is the petitioners claim that an ex parte award was passed by the arbitrator and the petitioner had no notice of the arbitral proceedings. According to the petition, the petitioner had instituted a suit against the finance company in a Durgapur Court where the finance company applied on February 14, 2014 for rejection of the plaint and disclosed certain documents along with the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The petitioner says that it was upon noticing such documents that the petitioner has come to learn that the impugned award has been passed. The petitioner asserts that prior to February 14, 2014, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET ALP No.20 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE CHANDRALEKHA MITRA Versus SAJAL KUMAR MITRA AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Tilok Bose Sr.Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sourjya Roy, Adv.Mr.Utpol Bose, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.A.Roy, Adv.The Court: Mr.Tilok Kumar Bose learned Senior Advocate submits that due to inadvertence the third and fourth defendants in the suit, Kalyan Kumar Dey and Mitra S.K.Private Limited were omitted to be made parties in this Clause 13 read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure application. I find that it was a mistake and hence an inadvertent error has crept in. Let the cause title of this application be amended by adding the parties mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit as respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively. The suit in the Court below is of 2011. It was subsequently renumbered as title suit no.48 of 2013 (Sajal Kumar Mitra versus Saibal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.1190 of 2013 G.A.No.422 OF2014Biswajit Maji & Anr. Versus Coal India LTD.& ORS.BEFORE The Honble Justice HARISH TANDON Mr.Partha Ghosh, Adv..for the petitioners Mr.R.N.Majumder, Adv., Ms.S.Barman Roy, Adv..for the E.C.L.Mr.A.Lahiri, Adv..for the added applicants. Judgment On : 31.03.2014 HARISH TANDON, J : The challenge is made to a recruitment process for the post of Security Guard-Technical and Supervisor Grade G undertaking by the Eastern Coalfield Limited, the respondent no.2 herein, being the subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, the respondent no.1 herein, which is a Government of India undertaking, commenced on the basis of the advertisement/ notice no.1 of 2011 published on 25.06.2011. By the said notice, the applications were invited from Ex-Army/Ex-BSF personnel or NCC B&C Certificate Holder or Sportsman of All India repute for the above post. 215 vacancies were notified in the said notice and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.1059 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus SHARAN RAJ SINGH & ANR. Appearance Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.S.Nag, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. The Court : The respondents are represented. It is the undisputed position that subsequent to the payment of a sum of Rs.10 lakh after the institution of the petition, a sum in excess of Rs.16 lakh now remains due on account of defaulted instalments reckoned till today. There will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the petition which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the asset covered by the agrement in the usual couRs.of business till such time that the receiver takes possession thereof. The receiver will proceed to take possession of the asset covered by the agrement after the expiry of two weeks from date if a further sum of Rs.10 lakh is not tendered by way of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.441 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus GRANT LOGISTICS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.1.70 crore is due upon the termination of the agreement, including an amount in excess of Rs.4.72 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. According to the petitioner, of the six assets covered by the agreement between the parties, the petitioner has obtained possession of one of the assets in terms of the agreement and the respondent has not protested the same. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.9 lakh is due only on account of defaulted instalments as on date, since the relevant figure appearing in the petition was the amount due as at the date of termination of the agreement. No immediate order is call...
Tag this Judgment!