Kolkata Court March 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.
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
AP AP AP AP AP AP AP No.710 No.711 No.712 No.713 No.714 No.715 No.717 of of of of of of of 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.& ANR. Appearance Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Ms.S.Sanyal, Adv.Mr.K.R.Thakkar, Adv.Mr.Avinash Kankani, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 18, 2014. The Court : The parties are agreed to the form of the order suggested by Court. In these seven matteRs.the petitioning finance company complains of the failure on the part of the respondents to adhere to the payment schedule in a settlement agreement following defaults committed by the respondents in making payments in respect of eleven finance agreements. According to the finance company, a total of Rs.95 lakh has become due till March, 2014 in terms of the settlement agreement, though upon default being made in paying under the settlement agreement, the settle...
Hindustan Ferro and Industries Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.208 of 1996 Hindustan Ferro & Industries LTD.versus Suresh Kumar Jain For the Plaintiff : Mr.Arif Ali, Advocate Mr.Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocate Heard on : March 12, 2014 Judgment on : March 18, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit was for specific delivery of assets belonging to the plaintiff, in the alternative a decree for a sum of Rs.350 lakhs, a decree for specific delivery of books, papeRs.accounts, documents and other properties and assets belonging to the plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for Rs.10,00,000/- as well as for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff a limited liability company incorporation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 was managed by its Board of DirectORS.The defendant was one of the Directors of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a manufacturing company. In 1995 the company was...
Jayesh AmIn Vs. Commr. of Central Excise and Service Tax-ranchi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,77,426/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the stay order dated 5/9/2011. He submits that the applicant had rendered services as a sub-contractor and the entire amount of Service Tax had been discharged by their principal contractor. The Ld. Advocate submitted that in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Auto Flash Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore- 2008 (9) STR 462 (Tri-Bangalore), the applicant, a sub-contractor is not required to pay the Service Tax once the principal contractor has discharged the service tax on the same set of services rendered. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has fairly accepted that the issue h...
M/S. Pollar Industries Ltd and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants has submitted that this Tribunal, vide Stay Order No.S-339-341/KOL/2011 dated 17.11.2011, dismissed the Applications of the above-mentioned Applicants for waiver of predeposit of duty, interest and penalties adjudged, vide De Novo Order dated 31.03.2009 of the Adjudicating Commissioner for non-prosecution. Subsequently, vide Tribunals Final Order No.A-85-87/KOL/2012 dated 14.02.2012, all the Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the Predeposit Order. The Applicant firm, M/s. Polar Industries filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall/modify the above Tribunals Orders. Miscellaneous Application was dismissed by this Tribunals Order No.M-598/KOL/2012 dated 25.10.2012. Being aggrieved, the Applicant firm filed a Writ Petition No.27(W) of 2013 before the Honble High Court, vide its Order dated 16.01.2013, the Honble Court directed the Tribunal to consider the impugned Miscellaneous Applic...
Kaberi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shrimati Ila Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
EOS No.18 of 1991 TA No.421 of 2007 With TS No.167 of 1981 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE KABERI PVT.LTD.VERSUS SHRIMATI ILA BASU & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 14th March, 2014 Appearance: Mr.R.N.Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Mr.Sayantan Bose, Adv.The Court: This matter has been mentioned by the defendant No.9 for correction of the typographical errors occurred in the judgment dated 9th October, 2013. It appears that there are certain typographical errors which needs to be corrected. Accordingly, by consent of the parties the following corrections are to be effected in the original judgment dated 9th October, 2013. At page 4, in the tenth line of the original judgment 26th June, 1992 shall be corrected as 26th June, 1982. At page 5, in the last paragraph of the original judgment 26th August, 1992 should read as 26th August, 1993. At page 11, in the fiRs.line of the original judgment 4th September, 1978 shall be corrected as 21st September, 1978 and in the last pa...
Rakesh Khattar Vs. Debasish Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
ORDER SHEET CC No.58 of 2013 -withWP No.729 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Civil Jurisdiction ( Contempt ) ORIGINAL SIDE RAKESH KHATTAR Versus DEBASISH CHAKRABORTY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date : 14th March, 2014. Appearance : Ms.Smritikana Mukherjee, Advocate. Ms.Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury, Advocate. for contemner. The Court : None appears for the petitioner. This application for contempt was filed by the petitioner by alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 30th November, 2012 in WP No.729 of 2012. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Executive Engineer of the concerned Borough to hold an investigation at the site upon notice to the parties for ascertaining as to whether any illegal construction has been and/or is being raised by the private respondents in the said premises and in the event it is found that any illegal construction has been and/or is being raised by the private respondents in...
Asoke Kumar Paul and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.8 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASOKE KUMAR PAUL & ORS.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 14th March, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sarajit Sen, Adv.Mr.Sambhu Nath Sardar, Adv.for the petitioneRs.Mr.Tapan Coomaar Dey, Adv.Mr.Debsoumya Basak, Adv.for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adv.Mr.Tapas Singha Ray, Adv.for the respondent Nos.5 to 15. The Court: This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27th September, 2012 of the Assistant Housing Commissioner-I/West Bengal Housing Board. It has been sought to be conveyed thereby to some of the petitioners that construction of Diya Housing Project, consisting of fifty-four numbers of HIG dwelling units in one number of G + 9 storied building on the Boards land at Karunamoyee, Salt Lake, has faced resistance of local elements and that the project has been deserted. It is foun...
Smt. Manika Chandra and ors. Vs. Khalil Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
ORDER SHEET CC No.5 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Civil Jurisdiction ( Contempt ) ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. MANIKA CHANDRA AND ORS.Versus KHALIL AHMED AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date : 14th March, 2014. Appearance : Mr.S.Bhattacharya, Advocate. for the petitioner Mr.Alok Kumar Ghose, Advocate. Mr.Debangshu Mondal, Advocate. for the contemner. The Court : Let the supplementary affidavit which is filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the record. This contempt application was filed by the petitioner by alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 7th June, 2013 in WP No.511 of 2013. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Municipal Authority to initiate a proceeding under section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act in respect of the additional construction which was detected by the Municipal Authority in the said premises during inspection and conclude the same by passing a ...
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Mr.Justice Arijit Banerjee A.P.O.No.352 of 2013 C.S.No.87 of 2013 And A.P.O.No.353 of 2013 C.S.No.56 of 2013 Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.versus Hindustan Unilever LTD.AND A.P.O.No.7 of 2014 C.S.No.92 of 2013 AND A.P.O.No.8 of 2014 C.S.No.90 of 2013 Hindustan Unilever LTD.versus Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.For Reckitt Benckiser India Limited : Mr.C.M.Lal, Advocate Ms.Nancy Roy, Advocate Mr.Sayantan Bose, Advocate Mr.Partha Basu, Advocate Mr.Sudhakar Prasad, Advocate For Hindustan Unilever Limited : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Anshumala Bansal, Advocate Heard on January 16, 30, 31, 2014 and : February 11, 13, 19, 2014 Judgment on : March 14, 2014 ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. CAUSE THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CONTROVERSY: The parties filed suits against each other obje...
Nandalal Rathi Vs. the Kamalalaya Centre Shops and Office Owners Assoc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.No.174 OF2002With G.A.No.2343 OF2013Nandalal Rathi versus The Kamalalaya Centre Shops & Office Owners Association & ORS.For the plaintiff : Mr.Jayanta Banerjee, Ms.Amrita Pandey, Mr.S.R.Saha, For the defendants : Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Heard on : 13.02.2013, 27.02.2013, 13.03.2013, 12.04.2013, 03.06.2013, 01.07.2013, 08.08.2013, 30.08.2013, 14.02.2014, 28.02.2014 Judgment on : 14th March, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The defendants have filed this application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The petitioners-defendants in the petition have stated that the plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the letter containing the defamatory statement was published on 3rd February, 2001. Accordingly, in terms of Article 75 of the limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for compensation for libel is one year from the date when the libel was published...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »