Court : Kolkata
GA No.803 of 2014 WITH WP287of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. HASHI MUKHERJEE Versus C.M.C.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 27th March, 2014. For the petitioner : Mr.S.Basu,Advocate Mr.Soumen Dutta,Advocate For the respondent No.15 : Mr.Debdut Mukherjee,Advocate For the respondent Nos.10,12,13 & 14 : Mr.Indranil Roy,Advocate Mr.Dipayan Choudhury,Advocate Mr.Suvradal Choudhury,Advocate For Kolkate Municipal Corporation : Mr.Jugal Chandra Porel,Advocate The Court : - This application has been made on the strength of several orders having been passed in the writ petition though the same stood disposed of on 4th May,2001. The writ petitioner has applied for directions upon the present Administrator to act in terms of the order dated 13th January,2014. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is not allowed to get essential services of water supply from the tubewell and use of lift in the apartment buildin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AP No.1354 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.Versus SHREE MAHALAXMI CORPORATION PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 14th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.S.Yadav, Adv.The Court : The respondent is represented and says that it is unable to make immediate payment. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of 70 lakh is due only on account of defaulted instalments. The Receiver reports that in couRs.of the Receivers visit, the Receiver was informed that the four EOT cranes covered by the agreement would take a long time to dismantle; whereupon the Receiver had appointed an agent for the purpose of dismantling the cranes. The Receiver says that such work has not yet been completed. The petitioner seeks a direction for sale of the assets on as is where is basis with the purchaser being at liberty to dismantle and remove the cranes. The respondent submits that sufficient time shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET AWT No.2 of 2014 GA. No.168 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CIT. KOL-1I Versus M/S HSIL LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 27th March, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.P.K. Bhowmik, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.P.Bag, Adv.Mr.C.S. Das, Adv.The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 27th August, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue for the following reasons;We find the scope of section 2(ea) does not include urban land but once the land so held is part of the industrial undertaking or factory it ceases to have the independent character as urban land, it is a part and parcel of the industrial undertaking, factory or business premises as the case may be. The mere fact that a part of land, which is held as factory, is sold by the assessee as a piece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.506 of 2014 With E.O.S.No.41 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA EXTRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE SRIKANT MANTRI Versus HARI PRASAD MANTRI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 27th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.R.L.Mitra, Adv.Ms.P.Dhar, Adv. for the plaintiff Mr.P.K.Ghose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.Mr.S.Mitra, Adv.Mr.R.K.Mitra, Adv. for the defendant MRS.Suparna Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.D.Ghoshal, Adv.Mr.N.Khanra, Adv. for the defendant No.9 The Court: Pursuant to the Subpoena dated March 25, 2014, Mr.Biswanath Mistry, Group D staff, produced some documents. Let the documents be kept on record. The parties admitted that the documents produced today pursuant to the Subpoena were required to be considered in G.A.No.506 of 2014. Mr.Ghose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1, submitted that the documents could not be marked as exhibits. However, he submitted that the document...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
CA No.117 of 2013 CA No.116 of 2013 CP No.151 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDEJURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: BANGUR BROTHERS LTD.(IN LIQN.) -ANDVIKRANT FORGE LTD.Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 27th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.N. Mookerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Nilay Sengupta, Adv.Mr.D.N. Sharma, Adv.Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.Mr.Suman Dutt, Adv.The Court : In tune with the order of March 13, 2014, another of the matters has been resolved amicably. The order dated March 13, 2014 carries several mistakes. The reference at the top of the order to CA No.116 of 2013 and CA No.117 of 2013 have mistakenly appeared as GA No.116 of 2013 and GA No.117 of 2013, which should be corrected. The same correction should be incorporated in the fiRs.paragraph of the order. By the order dated March 13, 2014, of the three applications which were then pending, CA No.115 of 2013 was disposed of by recording the agreement be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata in Case No. 254/2011 by which the same has been dismissed on contest but without cost against the OPs 1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte against OP 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with it, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant, in short, is that he made one Mediclaim Policy for self, his wife and two sons, being no. 100400/48/10/8500004359 w.e.f. 22.11.2010 to 21.11.2011 from the OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. His son, namely, Shri Abhisek Bhattacharya, underwent Lasik Surgery at Infants Better Sight Centre Pvt. Ltd. under Dr. Sudip Chowdhuri on 17.05.2011. He incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.34,050/ for his treatment, which claim has been repudiated by the OP No.3 by a letter dated 10.07.2011 in misconception, unreasonably irrationally and arbitrarily. He appealed against such repudiation to the OP ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Three Appeals are filed by the Assessees namely, Shri Bhimendra Kumar Goyal and S/Shri Rahul Goyal and Vivek Agarwal and the 4th Appeal is filed by the Revenue. All the Appeals are taken up together for disposal, as the same have been filed against a common Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), WB, Kolkata. 3. We find that both sides are aggrieved by the said Order. 4. Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submits that in similar situation, appeals were remanded to the Adjudicating Commissioner for fresh decision, and he requests for similar Orders in these cases also. 5. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue has no objection to such remand, but prays that a time-frame be fixed for disposal of the Appeals. 6. We find that in similar situation, this Tribunal earlier in the case of Singh Brothers Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Port), Kolkata (Order No.S-38-39/A-49-51/KOL/08 dated 08.01.2008) and Automatic Small Scale Industries v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Dr. D.M. Misra, 1. The Applicants, Sri Chhaliya Srivastava and Sri Vikash Bajoria have filed these Applications seeking waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs.1.00 crore imposed on each of the Applicants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submits that the Applicants had not received the complete Show Cause Notice and it was handed over to them only somewhere in August, 2013. It is his submission that due to non-receipt of the complete Notice, the reply to the Show Cause Notice could not be filed. The Order was passed by the ld. Adjudicating Commissioner ex-parte, without hearing them. He submits that this has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, and since it goes to the very root of the matter, therefore, the impugned Order imposing penalty against the Applicants, cannot be sustained. 3. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, as the Applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER CC No.195 of 2011 Arising out of GA No.2945 of 1999 CS No.404 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Civil Jurisdiction (Contempt) M/S.ABHISHEK DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.Versus SMT. PRABHATI BANERJEE & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date: 26th March 2014. Appearance: Mr.Krishna Raj Thakkar, Advocate Mr.Kuldip Mallick, Advocate Mr.Swarajit Dey, Advocate Mr.Indradeep Basu, Advocate ...advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate ...for Contemner/Respondent No.1. Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Pramit Kumar Ray, Advocate Ms.Sanchita Chaudhury, Advocate Mr.Saunak Ghosh, Advocate ...for Contemner/Respondent No.2. COURT: In this contempt application, violation of orders dated 16th July 1999 and 27th July 1999 has been alleged. By the order dated 16th July 1999, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to dealings and transactions of the property in question for the time specified in the said order. This order by a subsequent order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET ACO432014 APOT1282014 CP1161996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE: REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD (IN LIQN) -ANDGAURAV GUPTA -VSTHE O/L & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 26th March, 2014. Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vinay Misra, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr.Aniruddha Ray, Advocate for the workeRs.Mrs.Ruma Sikhdar, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. The Court : This appeal would arise out of an order passed by the learned Company Judge in a winding-up proceeding. The subject property was leased out to the company [in liquidation].as claimed by one Nand Kishore Singla stated to be the owner of the property. However, properties are in occupation of the appellant who claims to be the new tenant under the owner. This question would be decided at the hearing of the appeal. The learned Judge asked the Official Liquidator to take possession. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!