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.
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Zylog Systems Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
AP No.982 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus M/S.ZYLOG SYSTEMS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 26th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.Ms.Anna Malhotra, Adv.The Court : The respondent is not represented today though it had been represented earlier. It would be evident from the orders of December 4, 2013 and February 13, 2014 that the respondent has deliberately delayed the matter without intending either to make any payment or make over the assets that form the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties to the petitioner or to the Receiver appointed by Court. The Receiver has filed two undated reports. The second of the reports indicates that the Receiver was taken to several places in Bangalore and Chennai. At the Chennai office of the respondent, the Receiver found a number of the assets but faced resistance from the respondent in taking possession thereof in terms o...
M/S.Abhishek Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Prabhati Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
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 ...
Jahar Lall Pyne and ors. Vs. Biva Pyne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET GA8512014 APOT4122013 CS2192006 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE JAHAR LALL PYNE & ORS.Versus BIVA PYNE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 26th March, 2014. Mr.Samanya Sengupta, Advocate Mr.Syamantak Banerjee, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.S.N.Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.D.Roy Chowdhury, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 2. The Court : This appeal would arise out of an order of dismissal of an interlocutory application at the instance of the applicants. The applicants obtained interim order from the learned single Judge and thereafter did not want to pursue the same. The applicants prayed for withdrawal of the application. His Lordship dismissed the same as withdrawn with costs assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The respondents have now come up in appeal as, according to them, the learned single Judge should not have allowed the application to be withd...
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Riju Cement Private Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
AP No.1465 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.-VersusRIJ.CEMENT PRIVATE LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.Priyankar Saha, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 26, 2014. The Court : It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner had taken appropriate steps in terms of the order dated January 8, 2014, an erroneous submission was made on behalf of the petitioner when the matter last appeared on March 6, 2014. On March 6, 2014, the order dated January 8, 2014 was recalled on the ground that the petitioner had not taken any steps in terms of the previous order. The receiver is present and says that the receiver had traveled on February 15, 2014 to make an inventory of the asset covered by the agreement. In such circumstances, the order dated March 6, 2014 is recalled and the order dated January 8, 2014 is revived. The receiver has filed a re...
Amarendra Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET CEXA No.1 of 2014 G.A.No.788 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMARENDRA SINGH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, BOLPUR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 26th March, 2014. Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Pramit Das, Advocate and Mr.Chandra Sekhar Das, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Pradip Kumar Roy, Advocate and Mr.K.K.Maiti, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court : Learned counsel on either side were heard for some time. It appeared that the demand principally is for a sum of Rs.1.37 crores. The learned Tribunal had directed the assessee to put in a sum equivalent to 50% of the aforesaid sum. The assessee was and still is interested in contending that the demand is altogether wrongful and no money is payable. Considering that the assessee did not get a chance at any stage to place his case for consideration, we are of the opinion that ends of justice sha...
Pramod Kr. Bajaj Vs. Shew Ratan Bajaj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET C.S.No.58 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRAMOD KR. BAJAJ Versus SHEW RATAN BAJAJ BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 26th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Swapan Kr. Mullick, Adv.Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv. for the plaintiff Mr.A.Rashid, Adv.Mr.Kaushik Chatterjee, Adv. for the respondent Nos.1 & 3A Mr.R.C.Prasti, Adv.Mr.L.Som, Adv. for the defendant no.4 MRS.Nandini Mitra, Adv. for the defendant no.6 Mr.R.Dutta, Adv. for the defendant Nos.5A, 5B and 5C The Court: Typographical errors were pointed out in the order dated February 21, 2014. In the second line of the order the defendant no.4 should be read as defendant No.3A. In all the other places of the order the defendant no.4 should be read as defendant No.3A. In the last page of the order the fiRs.sentence would read as follows: The defendant Nos.1 and 3A will also serve copies of the amended written statement and the plaint on the added defendants. The defenda...
Susmita Bhowmick Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.864 of 2014 APOT No.131 of 2014 WP No.842 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUSMITA BHOWMICK Versus EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE Date: 26th March, 2014 Mr.Atish Dipankar Ray, Adv.with Mr.Soumajit Mishra, Adv..for the appellant Mr.Soumitra Banerjee, Adv..for the respondent no.1 Mr.Debjit Mukherjee, Adv..for the State. This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 11th March, 2014 whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the ESI Court to dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of six months and directed the appellant herein also to deposit Rs.50,000/- with the ESI Court in terms of Section 75(2b) of the said Act. The learned Advocate representing the appellant-petitioner submits that no opportunity was ever granted by ...
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata Vs. National Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
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 ...
Bhimendra Kumar Goyal and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) W ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
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...
M/S. Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Ser ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.26.22 lakh and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the Applicant to deposit the entire amount of duty while disposing of their stay application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, they failed to deposit the said amount. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld. Advocate submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits. It is his contention that they have a strong case on merits. He also submits that during the relevant period i.e. November, 2009 to March, 2010, they had cleared Aluminium Conductors as a sub-vendor of M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., to M/s. M.P.Paschim Kshetra Vid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »