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.
Varinderjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.279 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VARINDERJIT SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 28th March, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.N.K. Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.S.B. Saraf, Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.For Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Kaushik Dey, Adv.The Court : The petitioner have come up with this writ petition for innocuous relief directing the commissioner of customs (port) to consider and dispose of an application for release of the vehicles / truck. Mr.Saraf learned advocate appearing for the respondents points out that the intelligence intercepted the vehicle containing the offending articles and have initiated the proceedings. According to him the commissioner of customs (port) is not the appropriate authority for entertaining the prayer made before him but the commissioner of customs (preventive) is the appropriate authori...
Hilgers Private Limited Vs. Cesc Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
WP No.179 of 2014 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side. Hilgers Private Limited versus CESC Limited Before : The Honbale Justice Aniruddha Bose Date : March 28, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Kamaalesh Bhattacharya, Advocate For CESC Limited : Mr.S.Pal, Senior Advocate Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.R.N. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate MRS.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate For respondent no.3: Mr.Prabal Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Soumava Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Biswajit Kumar, Advocate Mr.Raja Baaliyal, Advocate For National Jute Manufactures Corpn.: Mr.Jayaanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Joydeep Banerjee, Advocate The Court : The writ petitioners before me are a limited company and their main prayer is for restoration of electricity supply or providing new connection to their office situated at 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001. This is a century old building having Grade A heritage status and the petitioners occupy a portion of the said building. Respondent Nos.4 and...
Remington Rand of India Ltd. (In Liqn.) Vs. Nand Kishore Singla Vs the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.257 of 2013 With CP No.116 of 1996 CA No.314 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD.(IN LIQN.) Versus NAND KISHORE SINGLA VS THE OFFICIAL LIQU IDATOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance : Mr.V.N.Mishra, Adv.Mr.K.Mallik, Adv.for Singla. MRS.Ruma Sikdar, Adv.for official liquidator. Mr.Kunal Sharma, Adv.official liquidator, Delhi High Court. Mr.Aniruddha Ray, Adv.The Court : In pursuance of the order dated 10th March, 2014, the Special Officer has submitted a status report. Let such status report of the Special Officer be filed with the Official Liquidator, Calcutta High Court along with certified copies of the records of petition No.5 of 2009 and execution case No.38/9 of 20th August, 2009. In view of the aforesaid, the Special Officer shall stand discharged. 2 Let the Special Officer be paid a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- out of the funds lying to the credit of the compa...
U.O.i. (Union of India) Vs. M/S. Drill Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
AP No.98 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE U.O.I.(UNION OF INDIA) -VersusM/S.DRILL Co.Appearance: Mr.Animesh Kanti Ghosal, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 28, 2014. The Court : The petitioner has challenged the arbitral award of December 16, 2004 on two principal grounds: that the amount awarded under the second and third claims are without basis and there are no reasons disclosed in the award in support thereof. The petitioner has also sought to question the award of interest, but it is evident from the award that interest has only been allowed at the post-award stage and not earlier. The agreement envisaged the sinking and fitting of four tube-wells at the Kharagpur complex of the South-Eastern Railway. Of the several claims made by the contractor, the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,477/- against the fiRs.head of claim on the virtu...
Oais Auto Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Impressia Imaging Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction AP No.908 of 2013 OAIS AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.Versus IMPRESSIA IMAGING PVT.LTD.AND AP No.909 of 2013 OAIS AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.Versus QUADTECH GRAFIKS (I) PVT.LTD.AND AP No.910 of 2013 OAIS AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.Versus IMPRESSIA IMAGING PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.J.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.S.K. Tiwari, Adv.Mr.D.N. Sharma, Adv.The Court : The respondents are represented but the respondents have not been able to bring any offer for the four vehicles that form the subject-matter of the agreements pertaining to these three matteRs.The best offers received by the Receiver are as follows: i. Rs.15.37 lakh for the C-250 Mercedes ii. Rs.1.09 lakh for the Scoda Octavia iii. Rs.10.15 lakh for the Toyota Fortuner iv. Rs.8.50 lakh for the Mitsubishi Pajero Since the offers appear to be commensurate with the values of the vehicles and the respondents have no...
Pasupati Dutta Vs. Kalpana Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.521 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PASUPATI DUTTA Versus KALPANA DUTTA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Haradhan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sunit Kumar Ray, Adv.Mr.N.Munshi, Adv.For the defendant no.1(a) & (b) Mr.N.Chowdhury, Adv.For the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.S.Mukherjee, Adv.For the defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7. The Court :- Today when the suit was taken up for hearing the argument of the parties, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) that they have one witness to produce. The defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) were substituted in place and stead of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 during his life time declined to adduce any evidence. It was submitted that since additional written statement was allowed to be filed and was, in fact, filed on September, 2013 by the defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) an opportunity be granted to ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
GA No.777 of 2014 PLA No.15 of 2013 N THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: SUDHIR CHANDRA CHAKI (DECD.) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.P.Gupta, Advocate The Court: The department is to issue the probate documents immediately. According to learned counsel the document was not issued because according to the department the will was with regard to immovable properties and in the affidavit of assets movable properties were also included. Furthermore funeral expenses were claimed by the executor which were not provided in the will. The executor wishes to amend the affidavit of assets by deleting the necessary parts thereof. Such prayer is allowed and the amendments as prayed for be carried out within a week from date. I sound a note of caution to the department that the issuance of probate ought not to have been held up on the ground as mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner...
Re:kamala Prasad Murarka and anr Vs. Registrar of Companies , West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.255 of 2014 With CA No.185 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE:KAMALA PRASAD MURARKA AND ANR Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES , WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Kuldip Mallick, Adv.for the petitioners Mr.Asim Kr. Dutta, Adv.Mr.M.Prusty, Adv.for the respondents. The Court : By a show cause notice dated 5th September, 2013, certain violations were alleged in the balance-sheet for the year ended 31st March, 2008. On June, 2009, a similar show cause notice had been issued and on a prayer made before the Company Law Board to compound the said offences an Order was passed. The Registrar of Companies without addressing itself to the said order of compounding dated 24th September, 2009, has issued the show cause dated 5th September, 2013. This is in abuse of powers and ex facie evidences non-application of mind. The issuance of the show cause of 5th Septembe...
Devendra Kumar Dugar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.223 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DEVENDRA KUMAR DUGAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 28th March, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Sudhir Meheta, Adv.Mr.S.B. Saraf, Adv.The Court : The Assessing Officer made the assessment on the bill of entry dated 2nd December 2004 which was assailed before the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) by the petitioner. Several mistakes both clerical and ministerial were pointed out before the appellate authority and the appellate authority set aside the said assessment order made on the said bill of entry and directed the assessment officer to re-assess the said bill of entry after rectifying the clerical and ministerial mistakes and shall also grant a consequential relief by way of a refund with interest to the petitioner. Though, an appeal is filed before the CESTAT but the same is yet to be admitted for the procedural defects. Be ...
Hdfc Standard Life, Kolkata Vs. Dilip Kumar Mukherjee
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »