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.
Chandralekha Mitra Vs. Sajal Kumar Mitra and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
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...
Subtleweigh Electric (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramgarh Sponge Iron Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
ORDER SHEET ACO492014 APOT1352014 CP7022013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUBTLEWEIGH ELECTRIC (INDIA) PVT.LTD.Versus RAMGARH SPONGE IRON PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate Mr.Arindam Maitra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : Short question is raised on this application for stay. We have heard the parties and we intend to dispose of this application by the foregoing order. The parties had transactions since 2005. There had been diveRs.payments made by the respondent to the appellant as against the services rendered by them. The payment chart would appear from page 204 of the petition wherefrom we find, lumpsum payments were also made. The last payment was made on July 28, 2011. Prior thereto, in the month of January, 2010 three substantial payments ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
ORDER SHEET CP NO.176 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : M/S.NIVERA APPARELS PVT LTD -ANDIN THE MATTER OF : CASTLE COMMODEAL PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 31st March, 2014. Mr.Om Narayan Rai, Mr.Prasant Agarwal, Advocates for petitioner Mr.Biswanath Mitra, Mrs.Sujata Mitra, Mr.Dilip Kr.Saila, Advocates for company The Court : This matter has appeared at the post advertisement stage. By order dated 17th April, 2013, the company petition was admitted for the sum of Rs.25 lakhs along with interest payable at 18% per annum. The said order was challenged in appeal which appeal was dismissed by order dated 2nd July, 2013. An affidavit has also been filed by the company at the post advertisement stage and three documents that need to be considered of the company at this stage when winding up order is to be passed are reply to the statutory notice, the fiRs.affidavit filed before admission of the company petition and...
Satyanarayan Pasari Vs. Ashok Kumar Pasari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
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...
Anil Kumar Banerjee Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.902 of 2014 W.P.No.131 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANIL KUMAR BANERJEE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 31st March, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Abhijeet Ganguly, Adv.Mr.D.Basu Mullick, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Md.Nizamuddin, Adv.The Court : This is an application at the instance of the assessee petitioner praying for modification of an order dated 3rd March, 2014 to the extent that the time to deposit further sum of Rs.2 lacs should be extended. The petitioners application under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having kept pending, the authorities proceeded to pass an order of attachment. The Court after considering the respective submissions directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac by March 4, 2014 and a further sum of Rs.2 lacs within March 24, 2014 as a condition for an interim protection. The petitioner have deposited a sum of Rs....
Pradip Kumar Ghosh Vs. Kolkatata Municipal Corporation and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
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 ...
Kabita Gupta, Hooghly Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution C ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
J. Bag, LD. Member The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 20.12.13 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in Consumer Complaint Case No. 52 of 2013 , whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest without cost. The case of the Complainant / Appellant herein was as follows: The Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.200/- under receipt No. 1471 generated on 02.12.2011 for new electric connection in her residence. After 15 days the Complainant communicated with the office of the OP and the OP promised to make enquiry within 15 days. Even in several months thereafter no action was taken. Lawyers notice was sent on 18.03.13, but to no effect. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon the OP to give new electric connection in the residence of the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not providing electric connection. The complai...
M/S. Seaking International Vs. Commr of Customs Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
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...
M/S. Swapan Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. The present Miscellaneous Application is filed for early hearing of the Stay Application filed along with Appeal on 31.10.2013. 2. The Ld.Consultant submits that they cannot operate their business because of the recovery notice issued to their clients and bankers by the department way back in May 2012. Pursuant to the High Court orders the present Miscellaneous Application is filed for early hearing of their Stay Application. 3. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue has no objection for early hearing of the Stay Application. 4. After hearing both sides we find that the Applicant could able to make out a case for early hearing of their Stay Application. Accordingly the Miscellaneous Application seeking early hearing is allowed. As both sides are ready, the Stay Application itself is taken up for disposal. 5. This Stay Application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.49.90 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78, Rs.10,000/- under Sec...
Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. Saregama India Limited and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.927 of 2014 APO No.215 of 2012 CS No.142 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BALAJ.TELEFILMS LIMITED Versus SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Tilak Bose,Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.Sengupta Mr.Arindam Guha and Ms.S.Roychowdhury Ld. Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Debnath Ghosh, ld. Advocate For the respondent. The Court :- Two years before an appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench wherein the Division Bench asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lac as security. Accordingly, the appellant deposited the said sum which is lying to the credit of the suit and the Registrar, Original Side has already invested the same in a suitable interest bearing fixed deposit account. Two years later, the appellant has now come up for modification of the said order to the extent, instead of cash security they would replace the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »