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.
M/S. Dynamic Construction Represented by Its Proprietor, Kolkata Vs. D ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Mridula Roy, Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 19.7.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, South 24 Parganas, in C.C. Case no. 18 of 2010 allowing the same in part on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- directing the OP to handover the Completion Certificate within one month from the date of order failing which the Complainants were at liberty to put decree into execution in accordance with the law and to get an interest @ 10% p.a. on the sum of cost for the default period. Being aggrieved by that order the OP has preferred the instant Appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the deed of conveyance has been registered in respect of the flats in question in favour of the respective complainants and since the deed of conveyance is the sole and exclusive document to show the ownership there is no need for Completion Certificate to obtain basic amenities like water supply connection etc. The case of the Complainants, in brief, is that they are the flat-owners of a bui...
Nisith Chakraborty and Another Vs. M/S. Dras Construction, Represented ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the order being No.02 dated 03.10.2012 passed by Ld District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-1 in case number C.C.12/411 rejecting the same giving liberty to agitate the issue before appropriate forum on self same cause of action holding that the subject-matter of the case is not within the purview of the C. P. Act, 1986. Being aggrieved by that order the complainant has preferred the instant appeal. Complainants case, in brief is that their father was a tenant under the land owners in respect of a portion of the premises No.121, Harish Mukherjee Road,Kolkata-700026, P.S. Bhawanipore. However, the land owners decided to erect a multistoried building in the said premises and entered into two Agreements for Development with the Opposite parties on 08.07.2003 and 17.07.2003 and asked the said tenant to vacate the rented portion on assurance that after completion of the construction project he would get an accommod...
M/S. Hdfc Ltd. MerlIn Estates, Kolkata Vs. Chandra Pal and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in CC 327 of 2013 allowing the complaint ex parte with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the OP. The OP was directed to return the document, that is, the original deed of conveyance, original receipt issued by the developer and all other relevant documents and also release of certificate in terms of prayer A of the complaint and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh within 15 days failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realisation. The OP was also directed to pay the punitive damage to the tune of Rs.2 lakh out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- be given to the Complainant and the rest amount be deposited with the SCWF within 15 days from the date of order.The case of the Respondents/Complainants, in short, is that they obtained loan which was completely liquidated, but the OP Bank did not return the documents ...
M/S. Sea Wings Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.1.75 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. At the outset, the ld. C.A. appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that during the period from October, 2005 to March, 2010, the Applicants have provided various taxable services, namely, Clearing and Forwarding Service, Business Auxiliary Service and Customs House Agent Service etc. The ld. C. A. submits that the adjudicating authority has initially confirmed the demand of Rs.3.00 Crores, which is in excess of demand raised in the show-cause notice i.e. Rs.1,75,03,370/-. Later, a corrigendum was issued, whereby, not only the said amount has been corrected, but substantial changes were made in the finding portion of the order. It is his submission that the corrigendum is not a simple correction of arithmetical errors, but a new order has been issued, which is beyond the power of ...
Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd Vs. Birla Industrial and Technological M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
AP No.389 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE OTIS ELEVATOR Co.(INDIA) LTD Versus BIRLA INDUSTRIAL & TECHNOLOGICAL MESEUM (BITM) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 24th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Adv.Mr.Kallol Basu, Adv.The Court : The award appears clearly to be erroneous and in derogation of the Limitation Act, 1963; and, as such, opposed to public policy and susceptible to annulment under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Despite the respondents insistence on an affidavit being filed, such request has been declined since affidavits may be unnecessary in proceedings for setting aside arbitral awards where, applying the dictum in Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner [reported at (1978).SCC405, the award-holder can scarcely improve on the reasons proffered in the award to sustain the same. The challenge is on the ground of...
Niranjan Lal Todi Vs. Nandlal Todi and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.80 of 2014 AP No.483 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NIRANJAN LAL TODI Versus NANDLAL TODI & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Date : 24th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Jay Saha, Ms.Rakhi Shroff and Ms.Debjani Ghosal, ld. Advocates For the appellant. Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Mr.Manik Das and Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, ld. Advocates for respondent no.1 Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ranjan Bachawat,Mr.Shaunak Mitra And Mr.Vivek Jhunjhunwala, ld. Advocates For the respondent nos.2 and 3. The Court :- This appeal would show how lackadaisical a litigant could be. On August 25, 2010 the appellant filed an application under sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter-alia, asking for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator. According to the appellant, the Arbitrator did not hold any sitting in fiRs.six months and thereafter held only three sittings i...
Prithwinath Dubey Vs. Smt. Sundrawati Devi Tewari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.1009 of 2007 With CS No.127 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRITHWINATH DUBEY Versus SMT. SUNDRAWATI DEVI TEWARI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.G.S.Gupta, Adv.Mr.Arup Kr. Chatterjee, Adv.The Court: On the prayer of the Receiver for discharge this matter was placed in the list as To Be Mentioned today. All the contesting parties are represented, it is submitted. By consent of the parties, the Receiver, who does not wish to continue on personal grounds, is discharged. There are no allegations against the Receiver. The Receiver will appropriate from the funds in his hands a final remuneration of Rs.20,000/- and a proportionate amount in accordance with the practice, for his clerk. He will file an account in the Registry of this court by 30th April, 2014 with copies thereof furnished to the appearing parties. Ms.Shakuntala Mukherjee Advocate, Bar Association, Room No.1...
MartIn Burn Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Saraf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
GA No.2775 of 2012 CS No.313 of 2012 GA No.3020 of 2013 GA No.2976 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MARTIN BURN LTD.Versus ABHISHEK SARAF BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate Mr.Asish Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.R.L.Mitra, Advocate Ms.Priyanka Dhar, Advocate Mr.Kumarjit Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Debasis Mukhopadhyay, Advocate The Court: The Order 7 Rule 11 application (GA No.2976 of 2012) is treated as on the days list. All the three applications are disposed of by this combined order. The defence of the defendant is based on a forum selection clause. It is found in the powers of attorney. It states that the courts in Mumbai will have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the disputes arising out of or under the powers of attorney. I am afraid that on the face of the plaint, the disputes as made out, arise out of alleged acts of the defendant transgressing the limits of th...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. Shyamlal Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
AP No.17 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction L & T FINANCE LIMITED Versus SHYAMLAL AGARWAL & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 24th March, 2014. Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.appears The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The receiver has filed a report from which it appears that the asset covered by the agreement has not been delivered by the dealer to the respondents because of certain other disputes between the dealer and the respondents. The petitioner claims that the entire value of the asset has been paid by the petitioner to the dealer. The petitioner seeks a direction on the receiver to take possession of the asset from the dealer. The receiver is directed to obtain possession of the asset from the dealer, subject to the dealer claiming any lien over the asset. If the dealer claims any lien on account of any payment due from the respondents, it will be open to the petitioner to negotiate with the ...
Manglam Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.5 OF2014WITH CS NO.457 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANGLAM FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Mr.S.N. Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.A.Mukherjee, Mr.S.Banerjee, Ms.S.Sinhaappear. Mr.K.BhattacharyaappeaRs.The Court : Mr.S.N.Mitra, learned senior advocate cited Standard Chartered Bank vs.V.Noble Kumar And Others with Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2013 Senior Manager, State Bank of India And Another vs.R.Shiva Subramaniyan And Another; reported in [2013].9 SCC620 He relied on paragraph 28, which is inserted below. It can be noticed from the language of the proviso to Section 13[3-A].and the language of section 17 that an appeal under Section 17 is available to the borrower only after losing possession of the secured asset. The employment of the words aggrieved by taken by the secured creditor [emphasis supplied].in Section 17[1].clear...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »