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.
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Euphoria Engineering
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
AP No.367 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LTD.Versus EUPHORIA ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th April, 2014. Appearance: Ms.S.Saha, Adv.Mr.S.Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : The respondents are represented and it is the undisputed position that the further payment of Rs.4 lakh as directed by the order dated April 2, 2014 has not been made and only an amount of Rs.3.2 lakh has been paid. The respondents are in the habit of not making payment in terms of Court orders as would appear from the order dated April 2, 2014 which recorded that they had made only a payment of Rs.1.6 lakh against the direction for payment of Rs.3 lakh by the order of March 26, 2014. There will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (b) of the petition which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the asset covered by the agreement in the usual couRs.of business till such ...
M/S. Pandey Roadlines Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
AP No.411 of 2014 AP No.418 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction M/S.PANDEY ROADLINES Versus TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Rahul Kinker Pandey, Adv.Mr.P.Sinha, Adv.Mr.S.Chowdhury, Adv.The Court : Two demand drafts totaling to Rs.3 lakh have been made over by the petitioner to the finance company in court today. It is submitted that the balance dues of Rs.63,094/- would be paid in couRs.of the day. The finance company protests the description of the sum of Rs.3,63,094/- as the balance dues and says that such amount is due only on account of the defaulted instalments till the date of possession and a month thereafter. The finance company is right. It had been suggested by Court on a previous occasion that the finance company should release the vehicles covered by the agreements upon the payment of the defaulted instalments till the date of possession and a further instalmen...
Om Prakash Tantia Vs. Supergreen (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
ACO No.100 of 2011 with APOT No.381 of 2011 CA No.125 of 2009 CP No.37 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Om Prakash Tantia Versus Supergreen (India) LTD.& ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 10th April 2014 Mr.Sudipto Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Saikat Basu, Advocate Mr.Manoj Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.Chowdhury, Advocate for Mr.A.K. Tantia The Court: At the second call accommodation is sought on behalf of the respondents. Such prayer is refused because of the reasons given below: The impugned order of the Company Law Board dated 19th July 2011 affects all the parties and not only the appellant. On 29th January 2010 Girish Chandra Gupta, J. disposed of a 10F appeal (APO No.150 of 2009 with ACO No.102 of 2009 Diamond Commerce LTD.& Ors versus Arun Kumar Tantia & Anr.) by directing as follows: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties including the submissio...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
ORDER SHEET CP846of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : NAROTTAM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.AND L & T FINANCE LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 10th April, 2014. Ms.Ranjaboti Sen, Adv.Mr.Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Debayan Ghosh, Adv.for the petitioner Ms.Baderqua Tasheen Ahmed, Adv.Mr.Apurba Kumar Ghosh, Adv.for the company The Court :-By this application the petitioner seeks to claim sums on account of a financing agreement between the parties. Part payments were made and thereafter defaults committed. For the defaulted sum a notice under Section 434 of the 1956 Act was issued on 25th June, 2013 and in spite of receipt of the said notice as will appear from the status certificate issued by the Director, Calcutta G.P.O., no reply has been given thereto. Therefore a statutory presumption has arisen of the inability of the company to pay its debt and the petitioning creditor seeks orders as sought. Counsel for the company...
i.T.C.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.1732 of 1997 W.P.No.1733 of 1997 I.T.C.LTD.Versus DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 10th April, 2014. Appearance : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Ms.Nilanjana Banerjee, Adv. for the petitioner Md.Nizamuddin, Adv. for the respondent The Court : The subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions are notices dated March 26, 1996 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. adjudication These order notices dated were issued December 29, on the 1995 basis passed of by an the Commissioner of Central Excise in proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 demanding duty and penalty. During pendency of the writ petitions there have been subsequent developments in respect of the said order dated December 29, 1995 which have been put on record by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit. It a...
Reacon Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
ACO No.172 of 2012 APO No.311 of 2012 with CP No.616 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ReaCo.Engineers (India) PVT.LTD.Versus Venkateswar Medicare PVT.LTD.& ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 10th April 2014 Mr.S.N. Mookerjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate Mr.Souvik Majumdar, Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Sinha, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Mr.Soubhik Chowdhury, Advocate Ms.Swapna Choubey, Advocate Mr.Debayan Ghosh, Advocate for the respondent Mr.Bimal Chandra Saha, Advocate for defendant No.4 in CS180of 2012 The Court: This is an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against an order of the Board, refusing an interim order prayed for by the appellant. Since institution of this appeal, affidavits have been exchanged in the main petition, before the Company Law Board and that the same is ready for hearing, it is submitted. A demur...
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Ad Vs. …for the Applicant
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
ORDER SHEET CA233of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 10th April, 2014. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr.D.N.Sharma, Adversus for the applicant The Court : A meeting of the Equity Shareholders of Tata Global Beverages Limited, the Applicant Company abovenamed (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company).shall be convened and held at Kala Mandir, 48, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700 017 on Wednesday, the 4th day of June, 2014 at 2:30 p.m.for the purpose of considering, and, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of Mount Everest Minaral Water Limited with the Transferee Company. At least 21 (twenty one) clear days before the date of the said meeting, an advertisement convening the same and stating that copies of the said Scheme of Amalgamation and of the Statement required to be furnished pursuant to Section...
M/S. Tuscon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolka ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs.4.71 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld.C.A. appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that during the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, they have rendered services under the category of Industrial and Commercial construction services to various clients by way of erection, commissioning, installation of cement plants. He submits that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. It is his submission that in execution of the contract of various cement plants, the Applicant purchased the raw materials for the clients and later got it reimbursed ; also the major portion of the material involved in execution of contract, are purchased by them and used in the execution of work. The ld. C.A., in support, placed the bills, invoices relating to purch...
M/S. Narayan Construction, Hooghly Vs. Ishani Dey and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Chinsurah, Hooghly in case no.CC 25 of 2011 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/- and directing the OPs to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the Petitioners as per terms and conditions of the agreement, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, in default interest @ 9% p.a. will accrue on the said amount till realisation. The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that OP No.3 is the sole proprietor of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Narayan Construction. OP Nos.1 and 2 are the owners who executed a power of attorney in favour of Narayan Kangsabanik to construct the building. The OP No.3 constructed the multistoried building. Late Sukhendra Nath Dey, the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants, during his li...
M/S. Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, B ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. Vide Order No.SO/71401/2013 dated 20.11.2013, while disposing of their Stay Application, the Applicant were directed to deposit 50% of the Service Tax and report compliance by 21.01.2014. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Applicant preferred a Writ Petition before the Honble High Court at Calcutta, and the Honble High Court by an Order (WP. No.50 of 2014) dated 24.01.2014 remanded the case to this Tribunal with a direction to consider the said Application, afresh. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing, today. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that inadvertently, the counsel who appeared earlier before this Tribunal, had advanced some wrong submission, and accordingly, vide the Stay Order dated 20.11.2013, the Tribunal had passed the Order directing the Applicant to make the predeposit of 50% of the Service Tax. He, however, submits that even though they were in possession of necessary documents to show that the receipts during the period prior to...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »