Kolkata Court April 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: Apr-11-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.637 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : EMRALD COMMERCIAL LIMITED AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 11th April, 2014. Mr.K.K. Thaker, Mr.A.K. Upadhyay for the applicants. Mr.Raj Sekhar Basu for the Central Government. Mr.Aniruddha Mitra for the State. The Court : Although State of West Bengal has been put on notice by the Central Government and it seeks to intervene in this proceeding, the State has no interest and even if there be any interest of the State, such is to be protected by the Central Government. The Central Government cannot shift its responsibility on to the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the only opposing respondent would be the Central Government and none other. An opposition has been filed by the Central Government and in the said affidavit two objections have been raised. The fiRs.objection raised is in respect of the return of allotment filed by the transferor companies wherein it has be...
Enterprise International Ltd Vs. Commercial of Customs (Port) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.320 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL LTD Versus COMMERCIAL OF CUSTOMS (PORT) AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 11th April, 2014. Appearance : Mr.P.K. Roy, Sr.Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.The Court: This writ petition has originated from the inaction on the part of the authorities in not taking decision relating to the provisional release of the goods imported under the Bill of Entry Nos.2271440 dated 29th May 2013 and 2279049 dated 30th May 2013. According to the petitioner, the customs authorities have raised a dispute relating to the valuation declared and seized the goods without providing any seizure memo. The petitioner says that under Section 110A of the Customs Act the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to make provisional release in favour of the owner of any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110 on taking bond in the prescribed form with such security a...
Mangal Steel Enterprise Ltd and anr Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1 ORDER SHEET W.P.1199 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANGAL STEEL ENTERPRISE LTD & ANR Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 11th April, 2014. Appearance : Mrs.C.Alam, Adv.Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.The Court : The petitioner have challenged the order dated 15th May 2013 passed by the CESTAT Kolkata whereby and whereunder the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the CENVAT Credit is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay 25 percent of the demand on account of CENVAT Credit within eight weeks from that date. The petitioner submits that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the financial hardship of the petitioner while determining the said application. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the show-cause notice a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the adjudicating officer ultimately found that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.90 l...
Sudhir Kumar Nandan and anr. Vs. Nani Gopal Nandan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
GA No.1006 of 2014 CS No.1763 of 1959 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUDHIR KUMAR NANDAN & ANR. Versus NANI GOPAL NANDAN & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 11th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Swarnendu Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Sanjib Das, Advocate Ms.Mou Chowdhury, Advocate Ms.Sangita Vishwakarma, Advocate The Court: This is an application filed by a body of shebaits, in a suit of 1959. The other shebaits are the pro-forma respondents and the lone respondent. The petitioners and the proforma respondents are united. The respondent, Sushil Kumar Nandan is not with them. The case of the petitioners is that the pala would come to them from the coming Bengali New Year. To discharge their obligations under the pala, the petitioners would have to observe the festivals like Ratha Yatra, Durga Puja, Kali Puja etc.and also perform the daily seba puja. Ingress into and egress from the property is being denied to the petitioners by the sol...
Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Chennai and Others Vs. Sudip ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,33,077/-, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order failing which the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue on the aforesaid amount till realisation. The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the Complainant took the membership of OPs by paying the amount of Rs.1,33,077/- by way of EMI through his credit card. The Complainant hired the services of the OPs and, as such, he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act. The OPs issued certificate of membership to the Complainant on 31/03/05 which is valid from 09/2005 to 08/2030. Due to shifting from Bombay to Kolkata the Complainant requested the OPs on 17/02/09 through e-mail seeking confirmation of reservation for stay...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata and Another Vs. Banita Dey, K ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 03.12.12 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit “II in Case No. CDF/Unit “II / CC No. 169 of 2011 , whereby, the complaint case was allowed on contest in part with cost against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed on contest against OP No.3. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The insured Biswajit Dey, being the husband of the Complainant , had obtained a Group Janata Personnel Accident Insurance Policy from the OP Insurance Company for a sum insured of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) only . The said policy holder was a Filed Worker of the Golden Trust Financial Services, being OP No. 3 who issued the insurance certificate No. 4751170000001/4751170030027 for the period from 01.12.200 to 31.11.2015.The Complainant is the wife of the deceased policy holder and also recorded as Nominee of the insured. On 18.12.2008 at about 9AM the insured died by drowning when he fell down...
Dean, Jyotirmoy School of Business Kalikapur, Kolkata Vs. Rabit Biswas ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Pargan as in CC 224, 225, 226 and 227 of 2012 allowing the complaints with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case. The OP was directed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants after deducting Rs.1,000/- in each case. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case as compensation within 15 days from the date of passing order failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue till the date of realisation. The case of the respective Complainants, in short, is that they got admitted in the OP Institution for PGDM programme. The sum of Rs.1,10,400/- was deposited by each Complainant. Subsequently, they got opportunity of admission elsewhere to pursue MBA course and they sent letter to the College Authority for cancellation of admission and refund of money. It has been alleged in the petition of complaint...
S.S. Bhalotia and ors. Vs. Essem Enterprises Private Limited and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr. Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee G.A. No.559 of 2014 APO No.258 of 2012 C.S. No.140 of 2009 S.S. Bhalotia & Ors. Vs. Essem Enterprises Private Limited & Ors And G.A. No.560 of 2014 APO No.259 of 2012 C.S. No.141 of 2009 S.S. Bhalotia & Ors. Vs. Fortune Enterprises For the Petitioners : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Aninruddh Poddar, Advocate Anurag Bagaria, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Krishna Raj Thakker, Advocate Mr. Rudrajit Sarker, Advocate Heard on : March 31, 2014. Judgment on : April 10, 2014. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.The Code of Civil Procedure would clearly categorize the decisions of one Court to be available for appeal before the superior Court. A class of decisions is specified as order that would be covered by Order XLIII whereas the othe...
Smt. Amala Palit and anr. Vs. Smt. Ratna Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee A.P.D.No.213 of 2005 C.S.No.616 of 1990 Smt. Amala Palit & Anr. versus Smt. Ratna Bose & ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.Deba Prasad Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Joydip Kar, Advocate Mr.Anirban Kar, Advocate Mr.Suvadeep Sen, Advocate Heard on : Judgment on : April 10, 2014 March 20, 21, 25, 26 & April 1, 2014 ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. FACTS: Subject property being premises No.24A Balaram Ghosh Street Calcutta was an old building at North Calcutta owned by Mukherjee family. By registered Deed of Lease dated July 25, 1964 Mukherjees leased out a portion of the said building being open and vacant courtyard at the back portion of the building for twenty one years in favour of the appellants. The lease expired by efflux of time in July 1985. As a condition of the lease, t...
Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Shree Mahalaxmi Corp. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
AP No.72 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus SHREE MAHALAXMI CORP. PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th April, 2014. Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.appears Mr.Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.appears The Court : It is not in dispute that a sum in excess of Rs.1.45 crore is due only on account of defaulted instalments, without taking into consideration the overdue charges and sundry other imaginary costs which are built into the finance agreement. The respondent is unable to arrange for immediate payment of the defaulted instalments. In such circumstances, the receiver appointed in the matter is directed to invite offers for sale of all the assets covered by the agreement. It is submitted by the petitioner that of the three assets, one is a batching plant that is difficult to remove from the respondents factory and should be permitted to be sold on as is where is basis. The two other...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »