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.
Hamid Miya Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER WP No.1202 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HAMID MIYA Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 7th March 2014. Appearance: Mr.Subrata Ganguly, Advocate ...for the petitioner. Mr.R.N. Majumder, Advocate Mr.Partha Basu, Advocate ...for the respondents. COURT: This writ petition at the instance of the workman challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol upholding the order of the management in dismissing Sh. Hamid Miya from services with effect from 2nd June 2004. Of the various aspects of the matter which the Tribunal has taken into position consideration that emerged it before appears the that Tribunal it on is an the admitted basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and was punished on four earlier occasions for the self same act. It appears that the management had ...
Germinda Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Birla Minus Worldwide Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
AP No.1150 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GERMINDA PVT.LTD.-VersusADITYA BIRLA MINUS WORLDWIDE LTD.Appearance: Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Asish Mukherjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.Mr.S.B.Saraf, Adv.Mr.G.N.Jagodia, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 7, 2014. The Court : The arbitral award has been challenged primarily on it being hypertechnical on rules of evidence without the arbitrator endeavouring a more substantive adjudication. This, according to the petitioner, is opposed to public policy as the technical rules of evidence do not apply to arbitration. The respondent came to be in possession of a property pertaining to a tenancy agreement executed between the parties on November 12, 2009. On January 29, 2010 a further agreement was executed to cancel the earlier tenancy agreement and for the respondent to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the petit...
Hilgers Private Limited Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.179 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HILGERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CESC LIMITED & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 7th March, 2014. For the petitioners : Mr.K.Bhattacharyya, Mr.A.Bhattacharyya. For the respondent no.1 : Mr.S.Pal, senior advocate, Mr.U.Bose, Ms.V.Maheria, Mr.J.B. Panda, Mr.R.Dutt. For respondent no.3. : Mr.P.Mukherjee, Mr.B.Kumar, Mr.S.Ghosh, Mr.R.Baliyal, Ms.S.Swaika. For National Jute Manufacturer Corporation Ltd : Mr.J.Banerjee, Mr.A.Banerjee. The Court : In this writ petition, the petitioners in substance seek direction on CESC LTD.for supply of electricity through independent supply line in respect of part of premises No.4, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata 700 001, of which they are in occupation. At this stage, it is not necessary to refer to nature of occupation of the petitioneRs.but admitted position is that the petitioners are in occupation of a portion of the said premises....
A.P. Moller Maersk a/S and anr. Vs. Titagarh Wagons Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER SHEET C.C.No.40 of 2013 Arising out of C.S.No.359 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Contempt].ORIGINAL SIDE A.P.MOLLER - MAERs.A/S & ANR. Versus TITAGARH WAGONS LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 7th March, 2014. For Petitioners : Mr.S.K.Das with Mr.S.Dasgupta, Adversus For Contemnors/Respondents : Mr.Jishnu Saha with Mr.Jayjit Ganguly, Mr.Pradeep Sancheti, Ms.Ankita Mukherjee & Mr.Amitesh Roy, Adversus This is an application alleging contempt. The suit does not appear to be ready for hearing. Hence as an Interlocutory Judge I have jurisdiction over the matter. The order which I propose to pass today, is in the aid of this combined jurisdiction. The order dated 4th February, 2013 was inter alia to the following effect : * * * * In that view of the matter, the plaintiff is granted a weeks time to destuff the cargo upon depositing the additional detention charges with the Registrar, Original side. This deposit will be made on the same ...
Dulchand Omprakash and ors. Vs. Dhirendra Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.652 of 2014 C.S.No.738 of 1987 Dulchand Omprakash & ORS.versus Dhirendra Mullick & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate Ms.Sinjari Bandyopadhyay, Advocate Mr.Aiman Abdullah, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Heard on : March 06, 2014 Judgment on : March 07, 2014 Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate Saumabho Ghosh, Advocate Sakhya Sen, Advocate P.C.Pal Chowdhury, Advocate R.C.Banerjee, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The applicants wanted to be added as parties to the instant suit. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement. The plaintiff wanted execution and registration of a deed of lease in its favour on the terms and conditions mentioned in the so-called approved draft lease deed being Annexure C to the plaint and a decree for possession of Premises No.7A, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata. The suit ...
Maheswar Pramanik and ors. Vs. Satkari Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.83 of 1977 Maheswar Pramanik & ORS.versus Satkari Sadhukhan & ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Lalratan Mondal, Advocate Mr.Shiladitya Bose, Advocate For the Defendant No.6 : MRS.Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Ambar Banerjee, Advocate MRS.Leena Panja, Advocate MRS.Amrita Panja, Advocate Heard on : February 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 07, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The continued occupation of Premises No.67/45-B, Strand Road, Kolkata by the defendants gave rise to the instant suit. The owner of the premises was Kolkata Port Trust. Lalita Sadhukhan was the tenant of Kolkata Port Trust. The original plaintiff took lease of the said premises form Lalita Sadhukhan. The original plaintiff gave sub-lease of the said premises to the Defendant No.6 by a deed of sub-lease dated December 16, 1965 on and from February 9, 1965. The Defendant No....
Rohit Construction Vs. Executive Engineer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
AP No.91 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ROHIT CONSTRUCTION Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 7, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Bijon Majumdar, Adv.Mr.Sayantan Bose, Adv.The Court : The respondent does not dispute the arbitration agreement or the receipt of the letter of invocation by the petitioner. The respondent says that the substantive claim may be barred by limitation. According to the respondent, the agreement was terminated on April 11, 2008, following which the petitioner made some claiMs.Most of the claims were rejected, including refund of earnest deposit, but a payment was made by the respondent refunding the security deposit. Such payment was made in August, 2011. The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement on June 14, 2012. The present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been carried to the Chie...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.254 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction POWER MAX (INDIA ) PVT.LTD.AND M/S MCNALLY SAYAJ.ENGINEERING LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 7th March, 2014. Mr.D.N. Sharma, Mr.Anirudh Poddar for the petitioning creditor. Mr.Chayan Gupta, Mr.S.Prosad for the company. The Court : This application has been filed under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The case of the petitioning creditor is that it had supplied goods as per the specification given by the company. The goods were to be supplied within six months from the date of approval of the drawings. The drawings were approved in January, 2011 and supplies have been made prior to June, 2011. Therefore, the issue of delay raised in the reply to the 434 notice is nothing but imaginary. The plea of defective goods also taken in the reply to the 434 notice is illusory as the motors to be supplied had to be of Kirloskar make. Thi...
M/S.R N R Development Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Susanta Chandra and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2252 of 2011 GA No.1362 of 2012 GA No.1363 of 2012 CS No.170 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.R N R DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT PVT.LTD.Versus Sr.SUSANTA CHANDRA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 7th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv..for the plaintiff. Mr.D.P.Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Bidyut Kr. Banerjee, Adv..for the defendant. The Court: The petitioners have filed the applications seeking same and/or similar reliefs. The reliefs essentially are with regard to the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the agreement contains an arbitration clause. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 14th April, 2009. The said agreement does not contain any arbitration clause. The petitioner refers to some other agreement which is a joint venture agreement and submits that the joint venture agreement contains an arbitration clause in...
Girdhar Das Purohit and anr. Vs. Miss Shree Kanta Bagree and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
ORDER GA No.638 of 2014 CS No.258 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction GIRDHAR DAS PUROHIT & ANR. Versus MISS SHREE KANTA BAGREE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 7th March 2014. Appearance: Mr.Indra Nath Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Sourav Mukherjee, Advocate ...for the plaintiffs. Mr.Amitava Das, Advocate ...for the defendant No.2. COURT: There is an ordinate delay in filing the written statement by the defendant No.2, who claims to be the biological mother of the defendant No.3. given an opportunity statement. to the On an earlier occasion, I have defendant No.3 to file written Mr.Indra Nath Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs is correct in his submission that ample opportunity was given to the defendant No.2 to appear and contest the proceeding. However, opportunity to having regard the defendant to the No.3 to fact that appear I and have given contest the proceeding by way of filing written statement, the defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »