Court : Kolkata
AP No.493 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RASHMI METALIKS LTD.-VersusW.B.MINERALS DEVELOPMENT & TRADING CORPORATION LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Debjani Ghosh, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.De, Adv...for the respondent No.2. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. The Court : The fiRs.respondent is not represented. The second respondent is represented and does not question the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement of February 5, 2008. The fiRs.respondent had replied to the letter issued by the petitioner invoking the arbitration agreement. In such response of the fiRs.respondent on March 3, 2014 to the petitioners invocation of the arbitration agreement by the letter dated January 16, 2014, the fiRs.respondent asserted that the disputes that were reflected from the letter of invocation did not pertain to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA9092014 APO902014 CS6191985 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRAHLAD RAI DHANANIA @ AGARWAL Versus PAWAN PROPERTIES & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Mr.Moloy Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Ashis Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.Niladri Khanra, Advocate Mr.Atish Ghosh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Advocate Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Advocate for the respondent no.1. The Court : The appellant has filed an application, inter alia, asking for an order on the respondent no.1 to forthwith make over possession of the said premises to the Receiver appointed in CS1482002. Supporting the application Mr.Moloy Ghosh, learned Counsel would submit, the respondents obtained the judgment and order impugned suppressing the fact, two other suits are pending in one of which Receiver has already been appointed. This appeal was barred by 107 days. The appellant applied for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.266 of 2014 C.S.No.297 of 1989 Rajeev Daga & Anr. versus Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise LTD.For the Petitioners : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Advocate Ms.Sulagna Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Surabhi Banerjee, Advocate For the Defendants : Mr.Swarnendu Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Tapati Chatterjee, Advocate Heard on : March 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 31, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. In a suit for possession and mesne profit, a Special Officer was appointed by the Order dated October 20, 1993. The Special Officer held a meeting on October 21, 1993 and made an inventory. The minutes of the meeting was at page 14 to 16 of the application. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on July 15, 2013. The appeal carried therefrom was dismissed on December 5, 2013. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that, the special leave petition against the judgement and order dated December 5, 2013...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.919 of 2014 APOT No.136 of 2014 CS No.220 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ARINDAM INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus A.I.CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Ms.Manju Bhutoria And Mr.Ravi Asopa. Learned Advocates For the appellant. Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury And Mr.Abhijit Guha Roy, ld. Advocates For the respondent. The Court :- This appeal would involve a very short question. We dispose of the appeal at the admission stage. The appellant and its sister concern filed six winding up petitions as against the respondent, interalia, making a money claim amounting to Rs.4.39 crore approximately. The petitions learned that gave Judge rise dismissed to a the Company winding appeal. up The Division Bench relegated the parties to suit by asking the respondent to secure the said sum of Rs.4.39 cro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II, dated 21.10.2013, in CC No. 251 of 2012, whereby, Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint with cost and compensation against the OPs. The complaint case , in brief, was as follows: The Complainant purchased an HDFC Standard Life Policy bearing No. 12333675. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.1,50,000/- with a guaranteed maturity value of Rs.12,79,953/- . After payment of two premiums each of Rs.1,50,000/- and upon receipt of the statement of September 2009 the Complainant, out of disappointment and distress, wanted to reduce the amount of premium and was allowed to do so for Rs. 40,000/- p.a. The guaranteed maturity value was reduced to Rs. 4,74,146/- ( Sum assured)+ Rs.73,554/- (Bonus) i.e, Rs. 5,77,000/- against total payment of Rs. 6,20,000/- ( Rs. !,50,000/-X 2+ Rs. 40,000/- ). The Complainant lost confidence on the insurer and requested f...
Tag this Judgment!