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.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Koliv, Vs. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT193OF2013GA3485of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-IV, Versus M/S.GUJARAT NRE COKE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 6th March, 2014. Ms.Mamata Bharghav, Advocate for Appellant Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate Mr.S.Das, Advocate Mr.C.S.Das, Advocate for Respondent The Court :- The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2013 by which the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal the Revenue has come up in appeal. The following questions have been proposed; a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation as the loss on account of decrease in value of loan given to its sister concern due to foreign e...
Modular Structurals Private Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.740 of 2009 -withWP No.1046 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MODULAR STRUCTURALS PRIVATE LTD.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 6th March, 2014. Appearance : Ms.Monju Agarwal, Advocate. Mr.Bajrang Manot, Advocate. Mr.Imran Ali, Advocate. for the petitioner Mr.Partha Sarathi Basu, Advocate. Mr.S.Talukdar, Advocate. Mr.Fazlul Haque, Advocate. for the KMd.Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate. Mr.Biswajib Ghosh, Advocate. for the State. The Court : The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9th July, 2009 issued by the Special Secretary, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority ( hereinafter referred to as KMd.).Ms.Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that assailing an order dated 23rd/26th October, 2006, a writ application, being WP No.16922(W) of 2007, was preferred and the same was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.5 ...
Santayani Vinicom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Companies, W.B.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SL. No.12 WP2212of 2001 SANTAYANI VINICo.PVT.LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.13 WP2214of 2001 CHAMKILA SALES (P) LTD.& ANR. Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.36 WP8of 2002 NANDITA COMMERCE PVT.LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANY SL. No.41 WP34of 2002 HARDIK COMMERCIAL (P) LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.42 WP35of 2002 BRITE ASBESTOS ENGG (P) LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.43 WP39of 2002 ORNAMENTAL FABRICATION (P) LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.44 WP40of 2002 SAHI AGENCY (SHIPPING) PVT.LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.45 WP54of 2002 ASU IMPEX (P) LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.SL. No.46 WP66of 2002 M/S.AMAZON SALES (P) LTD.Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES SL. No.57 WP197of 2002 UPKAR DEALERS PVT LTD.Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES SL. No.58 WP198of 2002 SWAPNIL MARCANTILE (P) LTD.Versus ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Jaytee Exports
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
ORDER SHEET ITAT No.184 of 2013 GA No.3368 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Versus M/S.JAYTEE EXPORTS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 6th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate. for the Appellant. Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate. Mr.Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate. Mr.Sunil Singhania, Advocate. for the Respondent. The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. The Assessing Officer had refused to allow deduction under Section 10A to the assessee for two reasons: (a) the assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacture of garments and (b) the auditors report was not filed either with the Return or at the time of assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the assessee. C.I.T (Appeals)...
Bhowmik Studio and Colour Lab. Cooch Behar Vs. National Insurance Co. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, MemberRecord is put up for orders.This is to consider the petition of the Jdr. for disposal of the Execution Case.It has been made out in the petition of the Jdr. that it has already complied the order passed in the original complaint case by depositing a sum of Rs.7,77,801/- to the concerned Allahabad Bank Branch as the Jdr. firm is hypothecated there, which duly acknowledged the payment made on 24.06.2013. In terms of the directions of this Commission, the Jdr. gave a letter dated 30.12.2012 to SNM Consultants, who thereafter by a letter dated 12.12.2012 requested to arrange a meeting with the Insured, the Insurer and the Surveyor to resolve the issue, and accordingly the Insured was informed vide letter dated 20.12.2012 with the request to attend the meeting, and thereby a meeting was held on 18.01.2013. Lastly, a payment of Rs.7,77,801/- was made and the cheque issued in the name of the Dhr. with the bank clause on 24.06.2013. So, the delay in the matter witho...
Dr. Sumantra Gupta, Darjeeling Vs. Dipak Ghosh and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing this appeal. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that no notice was served upon the Appellant herein in the complaint case. The Learned District Forum did not send the copy of order to the Appellant. The Appellant had no knowledge about the order impugned and it was only after the receipt of notice in connection with execution case no.46 of 2013 the Appellant came to learn about the judgment passed in the complaint case. Thereafter the certified copy of the order was obtained and the appeal has been filed and in the mean time the delay of 181 days occurred. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the complaint case was allowed ex parte against OP No.4/Appellant herein and no notice was served upon the Appellant in the complaint case before the Learned District Forum. The Respondent No.1/Complainant opposed the peti...
Debi Prasad Dutta, Kolkata and Others Vs. Dipak Ghosh and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing this appeal.It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the mother of the Appellants has been suffering from various ailments for which she is being treated at Vellore and she is fully dependent upon the Appellants. Both the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are unemployed. It has been submitted that the delay was not intentional and it may be condoned.The Respondent has opposed the application for condonation of delay and has filed written objection.We have heard the submission made by both sides. On 24/01/13 the complaint case was allowed on contest against OP Nos.1, 2 and 5 and ex parte against OP No.4. The complaint was dismissed on contest against OP No.3. On 28/01/13 the certified copy was applied for and it was delivered on the same date. The appeal was filed on 29/04/13. In support of the alleged illness of the mother no medical certificate o...
All India Uco Bank Staff Federation and anr. Vs. Uco Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen W.P.1204 of 2013 All India UCO Bank Staff Federation & Anr. Versus Uco Bank & Anr. For the petitioners : Mr.Ajay Debnath, For the respondents : Mr.Sabyasachi Choudhury, Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Mr.Sourjya Roy Heard on : 28.01.2014, 31.01.2014, 07.02.2014, 17.02.2014, 18.02.2014, 25.02.2014 Judgment on : 4th March, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- This writ petition has been filed at the instance of a miniscule registered trade union representing 1.63 per cent of the total strength of the workman in the employment of the bank. The exclusion of the union from negotiation and other matters in the Industrial Relation Policy for Workmen staff framed by the bank is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. This writ petition was heard along with W.P.No.464 of 2013 in which the majority union has challenged the same Industrial Relation Policy on the limited ground that the said pol...
Smt. Mita Sen Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen W.P. No.38 of 2013 SMT. MITA SEN VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS For the petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aiman Abdulla, Mr. Sandip Kumar Datta For the State : Mr. Sabyasachi Roychowdhury Heard on :14. 02.2014, 24.02.2014, 25.02.2014, 03.03. 2014 Judgment on :4. h March, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The order of the presiding Judge, 1st Labour Court in refusing to pass any order in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The said relief was refused on the ground that the order passed under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not an award which is capable of being executed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears from the record that the learned Judge of the 3rd Industri...
Sonthalia Viniyog Pvt Ltd Vs. Pratap Dube and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.16 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SONTHALIA VINIYOG PVT LTD Versus PRATAP DUBE AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 4th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Debojyoti Dutta, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Ms.Debamitra Adhikari, Adv.Mr.Rajarshree Dutta, Adv.The Court: Mr.Rajarshree Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that on the basis of an erroneous submission made on behalf of the plaintiff an order was passed dismissing the suit against defendant nos.1, 2 and 3. The learned Counsel has produced before this Court proof of service of summons upon the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3. In fact, the defendant nos.1 to 3 are represented in Court by Mr.Saurav Maitra who, however, cannot file the power without obtaining a prior leave since the suit had already appeared under the heading Undefended Suit. It appears from the relevant record that the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have been served ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »