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.
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET CP NO.549 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : M/S.MA CHANDI DURGA ISPAT LIMITED - ANDM/S.HANUMAN STEEL CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 24th March, 2014. MS.JOLLY SETT, MS.D.SETT, MR.R.GINODIA,ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER The Court : This winding up application has been filed on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The case of the petitioning creditor is that steel materials were supplied to the company by it for which bills were raised, which bills have been received without any protest. The goods have also been accepted by the company. No dispute has been raised in respect thereof nor has the goods been rejected. As no payment was forthcoming, on 17th April, 2012 a statutory notice was issued to which no reply has been given. Therefore, orders be passed as sought. In spite of communication of order dated 28th January, 2014 whereby directions were given to the company to file affidavit-in-op...
Pks Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
ORDER SHEET TA No.43 of 2014 With T No.85 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE PKS LTD.& ORS.Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 24th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Sumon Dutt, Adv.Mr.V.Raja Rao, Adv.The Court: On 18th March, 2014 I had passed the following order: I have considered the decision of the State Bank of India dated 1st February, 2014. By it, the fiRs.plaintiff has been declared as a wilful defaulter. Ms.Rao for the bank submits that the name of the fiRs.plaintiff was posted on the website of CIBIL and other CICs as early as September, 2013. I do not understand how this was done before the above decision was made on 1st February, 2014. The phrase wilful default is defined in paragraph 2.1 of a circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 2nd July, 2012. It is inserted below. 2.1 Definition of wilful default: The term wilful default has been redefined in supersession of the earlier definition as under: A w...
The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Retail Assets Centra ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Mridula Roy, Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-I in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2011 allowing the same on contest with cost against the Ops directing the Ops jointly and severally to adjust the outstanding loan amount in respect of Late Rajen Sen, i.e. deceased husband of the Complainant, with the Insurance Company and further directing the Ops to handover all papers relating to the said loan account and to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the Complainant and furthermore directing the Ops to pay the Complainant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to her husband and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- only within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Ops have preferred the instant Appe...
Himalaya Darpan Darjeeling and Another Vs. Manjula Subba, Darjeeling
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member The present Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.4.2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling in Complaint Case No. 2/D/2012, directing the Appellants/Ops to pay `35,000/- as compensation, ` 15.000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant/Respondent and also to deposit ` 5,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund, Darjeeling, plus interest @ 6% in case of default of payment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant to proper adjudication of the case are set out as follows: The Respondent/Complainant entered into a contract with the Appellants/Ops for publication of Antesty with a size 2?X15? of the daughter of the Complainant in the Appellants newspaper, Himalaya Darpan, for the period from 12.2.2013 to 16.2.2013 against a consideration of `13,500/-, but the same was not published on 14.2.2013 and 16.2.2013 in the said newspaper. However, on t...
Bikash Saha, Kolkata Vs. Subir Das, Kolkata and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member The present Appeal U/S 27 of the Consumer Protection Act has arisen from the Order No. 05 dt. 31.10.12 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas passed in connection with E.A. No. 50/2012 arising out of Complaint Case No. 219 of 2006, directing the OP No.2/Respondent No. 3, being the Developer, to re-allocate the owners allocation as per Agreement for Development executed in between the JDr and the landowners, and the landowners to vacate those flats which are not in their allocation and also to shift to their respective allocated portion to be made by the JDr. Briefly stated, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 219 of 2006 before the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, praying for order of execution and registration of Deed of Sale of a flat as per terms and conditions of the Agreement by and between the parties concerned. Thereupon, on hearing both the sides the Ld. District Forum below pa...
Dr. Debasish Mukherjee.and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh, Director, M.V. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. No. 31/24.03.2014 The record is taken up for passing order in respect of M.A. 569 of 2013. The Complainants have filed the instant M.A. praying for passing an order for appointment of an Advocate Commission for the purpose of conducting local inspection of the case property stating, inter alia, that vide order No. 17 dt.07/09/2012 this Commission restrained the O.P. No. 1and2 from transferring, letting out, handing over and parting with possession of any portion of the vacant common area of the building in dispute to any third party as well as from making any unauthorized construction upon any part or portion of the disputed portion and, therefore, in order to avoid any future controversy it will be just and proper to appoint a Commission for local inspection so that the existing position of the building, number of flats, garages and parking spaces be ascertained. The O.Ps. have filed objection stating ,inter alia, that the complainants have purposefully preferred ...
Tabraiz Alam Siddiqui Vs. Md. Mehmood Kamal and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member. MA-554 of 2013 The instant Misc. Application has been filed by the OP No. 3 challenging the maintainability of the Complaint Case No. CC/126/2013, filed before this Commission, on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in the matter arising out of West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner contends that under the West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 the Consumer Fora, having only limited jurisdiction, have no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to the matters arising under any of the provisions of the said Act, and as such, the Consumer Fora are not competent to decide the issue in question. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate referred to and relied upon a decision of the Honble High Court, Calcutta, in Smt. Rita Das Vs. Smt. Jayashri Ghosh and others [2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 29...
Branch Manager Uco Bank, Howrah Vs. Anima Das Residing at Kamardanga, ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.12 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah in Complaint Case No. HDF 1 of 2012, directing the Appellant to liquidate the outstanding loan amount in the name of the Respondent/Complainant, to return the deed of the property lying with the Appellant-Bank within one month, and also to pay to the Respondent/Complainant `10,000/- as compensation and ` 2,000/- as litigation cost as well. Further, a direction was also given to pay penalty of ` 50/- per day until full compliance with such directions. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant-Bank/OP sanctioned jointly in favour of the husband of the Respondent/Complainant and the Complainant herself a House Building Loan under UCO SHELTER Scheme for ` 6,47,000/- (letter dated 24.08.2007 duly signed by the Manager, UCO Bank, Shibpur Branch, Howrah). The said letter of the A...
Ramarani Karar, Howrah Vs. Sankar Ghosh, Howrah
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in complaint case no.CC 66 of 2012 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the property in question, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the subject matter of the present dispute is a land measuring 1 katta, 4 chattak, 30 sq. ft. to the northern side out of 3 katta, 4 chattak, 39 sq. ft. together with structure comprised in H.M.C. holding no.51, Carry Road, P.S. Shibpur, District-Howrah. The OP is the owner and the occupier of the property. The OP was in urgent need of money and agreed to sell the land at a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The agreement was executed and the Complainant paid Rs.3 lakh as earnest money. The agreement was valid upto 30th April, 2011. Complainant paid the c...
M/S. B.S.N.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.12.75 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 the issue involved in the present case is similar to the Appeals decided by this Tribunal vide Appeal Nos.125/08, 51/07 and07/07. He submits that while passing the interim order on 7th February, 2013, the Honble High Court has made a categorical finding that the Appellate Forum would be free to decide the stay petition or the appeal itself. He submits that even though in the earlier three cases, there were specific direction for disposal of stay petition/appeal, however, reading the order dated 7th April, 2013, the present stay application as well as appeal would also be covered by the said order. The ld. C. A. submits that the present appeal should also be remanded as the issues involved in the present case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »