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.
Lakshman Chandra Dey, Kolkata Vs. Manager Uco Bank, Kolkata and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short is that he had a bank account with the UCO Bank, S. N. Banerjee Road Branch. On 09/07/09 he issued a cheque for Rs.6,452.32 in favour of Standard Chartered Bank which was presented to the OP Bank after 10.30 a.m. On 13/07/09 the Complainant deposited the sum of Rs.6.530/- in cash after opening of the bank transaction and on the same date the cheque was presented and the OP Bank dishonoured it on the ground of insufficiency of fund. It has been alleged that the members of staff of the Bank misbehaved with the customers including the Complainant. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum. The Appellant/Complainant in person has submitted that the cheque was issued on 09/07/09 and when it was presented on 13/07/09 there was sufficient fund, in as much as, on 13/07/09 after 10 a.m. the Complainant deposited the sum of Rs.6,530/- in cash. It is contended that the cheque was wrongly dishonoured on the g...
Tulsidas Karmakar Proprietor of M/S. Shukla Engineering Works Resident ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 309 days in filing this appeal. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the judgment was delivered ex parte on 10/05/12. The Appellant was suddenly attacked with acute arthritis from 02/01/12 to 15/01/13 and, as such, could not file the additional W.V. nor could file the evidence-in-chief before the Learned District Forum. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the delay was not intentional. The Complainant has filed a xerox copy of medical certificate towards his alleged illness. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the notice was duly served upon the Appellant.We have heard the submission made by both sides and examined the materials on record. The Learned District Forum in the impugned judgment observed that the OP entered appearance and filed W.V. ...
Primex ResIn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-v
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
DR. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant for waiver of the duty of Rs.4,02,052/, interest (not quantified) and penalty of equal amount imposed on the assessee penalty of Rs.5,000/- on Shri Pawan Kr. Gupta, Director of the applicant company. 3. The Ld. Advocate has submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the applicant as he failed to make pre-deposit of Rs.3.00 Lakhs and submit the compliance report by the given date. It has been submitted that out of the total duty involved in this case, they have already paid Rs.92,871/- which has been appropriated in the order itself. The Ld. Advocate has submitted that the company is undergoing the acute financial stringency and in support thereto, he invited attention to copy of review and renewal agreement between the bank of Maharashtra and the application granting cash credit allowing facility of Rs.25.00 Lakhs only. The Ld. Advocate however made an offer to make a furth...
M/S. Shree Madhab Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit of Rs.19.33 lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merit, but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.9.00 lakhs. He submits that the issue involved in the present case, relates to eligibility to the extent of cenvat credit availed on GTA services on the iron ore fines emerged during the course of manufacture of sponge iron ore. He submits that this issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, BBSR II reported in 2013 (30) STR 532 (Tri.-Kolkata). 3. The ld. A.R. for the Department, does not dispute about the above facts advanced by the ld. Advocate for the Applicant. 4....
M/S. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-ii ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
DR. I.P. LAL 1. Heard both sides. 2. This misc. application is filed for condonation of delay of 338 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. Advocate has given a detailed chronology of the events from the date of passing of the Order-in-Appeal and the date when the appeal is filed before this forum. In support of the contention, the Ld. Advocate had submitted the affidavit of the applicant/appellant and a supplementary affidavit filed by them alongwith the affidavit filed by Shri Ajit Roy, looking after the tax matters of the Engineering Divn. of the applicant. The Ld. Advocate submitted that order dated-April 12, 2012 passed by the Commr. Central Excise (Appeals-I) confirmed the demand of Central duty of Rs.12,23,369/- alongwith interest and equivalent penalty was imposed on April 17, 2012 on the applicant/ appellant and handed over to Mr. Ajit Roy, employee. The contract period of Shri Roy came to an end on April 30, 2012 and he was also suffering from many ailments an...
Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Shampa Shadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ALP24of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA E.O.J ORIGINAL SIDE CYGNUS DEVELOPERS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.VERSUS MRS.SHAMPA SHADHYA & ORS.BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.DATE : 6TH MARCH,2014. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Anirban Kar,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Rajesh Upadhyay,Advocate appeaRs.The Court :- An application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is moved. An affidavit of service is on record. Mr.Chowdhury submits that all the respondents have been duly served. Only the third respondent is represented in Court today. He submits that common questions of fact and law are likely to arise in the trial of Title Suit No.1021 of 2012 pending before the learned City Civil Court and Title Suit No.330 of 2013 pending in the learned Sealdah Court. In the absence of any opposition I accept Mr.Chowdhurys above submission that common issues are likely to arise. These issues have been identified in paragraph 13 of the application as...
Uco Bank Vs. Precision Engineering Systems and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.292 of 1987 UCO BANK versus PRECISION ENGINEERING SYSTEMS & ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Debdutta Sen, Advocate Heard on : February 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 06, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Suit was for recovery of money lent and advanced. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that properties mentioned in Annexure H to the plaint remained hypothecated to the plaintiff as security. The Defendant No.2(a) filed written statement. The defendants did not appear at the hearing of the suit. The original documents of the plaintiff were lost. The plaintiff produced the partner of the Solicitor firm who was acting on behalf of the plaintiff as its Advocate on Record to prove that the documents annexed to the plaint where the true copies of the originals. Such Advocate deposed on June 14, 2011. By such deposition the Advocate established that, the documents annexed to t...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET CP3551997 CA3142009, CA3262009, CA1452009 CA9312010, CA10792011, CA9452011 CA8942011, CA2452012, CA4532013 CA3262009, CA8742011, IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE [WITH WP12609W)/2013].[APPELLATE SIDE MATTER].IN THE MATTER OF: GOURIPORE Co.LTD.(IN LIQUIDATION) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 6th March, 2014. Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Adv., with Ms.S.Mukherjee, Adv., for the applicants in CA4532013. Mr.S.Mukherjee, Adv.appeaRs.Ms.R.Sikder, Adv.appears for the Official Lquidator. Ms.Ipsita Banerjee, Adv., for Sohanlal Chandmal & Co.Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Adv., for Jupiter International Co.Mr.Sarkar, Adv.appeaRs.Mr.S.Mitra, Adv.appeaRs.Ms.S.Sanyal, Adv.for Mr.R.K.Garodia. Ms.Manju Agarwal, Adv.appeaRs.The Court : Let a copy of this application (C.A.No.453 of 2013) along with a copy of the supplementary affidavit taken out by the applicant be served on all the appearing parties on usual terms on request basis. However, I record that this applicat...
Suresh Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Samarendra Nath Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.461 of 1984 Suresh Kumar Gupta & Anr. versus Samarendra Nath Shaw & ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Swapan Kumar Mullick, Advocate Mr.Sudhakar Prasad, Advocate Heard on : February 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 06, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. Disputes revolved around two immovable properties at Ramudulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata. The plaintiffs and the original Defendant No.5 were brotheRs.They entered into two several agreements both dated March 25, 1975 with the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 for purchasing two immovable properties. During the subsistence of such agreements, the original Defendant No.5 along with his wife filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement in respect of the two immovable properties. In such suit the plaintiffs were not made parties. They applied for injunction in such suit. On refusal of an order of injunction, the original Defend...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolxv Vs. M/S. Jayteee Exports
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT no.185 of 2013 GA No.3381 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-XV Versus M/S.JAYTEEE EXPORTS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 6th March, 2014. For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate Mr.J.P.khaitan, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.Bhowmick with Mr.S.Singhania, Advocates The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed. The revenue has proposed the following questions of law : i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the re-assessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act as invalid on the ground that re-assessment proceedings were initiated after th...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »