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.
Sudha Khemka and Another Vs. Central Bank of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GA No.2404 of 2012 GA No.2778 of 2012 CS No.268 of 2012 SUDHA KHEMKA AND ANOTHER -VERSUS- CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS For the Plaintiffs: Mr Mr Mr Mr Pratap Chatterjee, Sr Adv., Reetobrata Mitra, Adv., Manik Das, Adv., Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.For the Defendant No.1: Ms Usha Doshi, Adv.For the Defendant No.2: Mr Hirak Mitra, Sr Adv., Mr Arun Geetesh, Adv., Ms Nilanjana Adhya, Adv., Mr Rishav Medora, Adv.For the Defendant No.3: Mr Anuj Singh, Adv., Mr S.E.Huda, Adv., Mr Sounak Sengupta, Adv., Ms Purnima Nath, Adv., Mr Lucky Mukherjee, Adv.Hearing concluded on: April 2, 2014. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: April 8, 2014. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : Nostalgia may have no place in a judgment, but it may be excusable to lament the extinction of a few legal axioms in the wake of the new laws that now come in faster than one can make it count and, often, unmindful of the manner of implementation thereof. What remains unchange...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
ORDER SHEET CA NO.211 OF2014CP NO.260 OF2008IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : BESCO LIMITED AND ROHIT JALAN BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 8th April, 2014. MR.M.GHOSH, MR.V.TIBREWAL,ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONING CREDITOR MR.ANUJ SINGH, MR.S.GHOSH, MR.RAJIB MULLICK, ADVOCATES FOR COMPANY The Court : By this application the petitioner seeks recall of the order dated 18th February, 2014. The only reason given for recall of this order is that no notice of hearing was served on the company and that the company had lost track of the matter and did not follow it as the matter did not appear for over six yeaRs.This can be no reason for not pursuing the matter. It is true that the matter may have appeared after a number of years but not to deprive the petitioner of hearing notice was given to it and the petitioner also received such notice. Courts are helpless if a litigant after receipt of the notice does not appear and cannot wait fo...
Asoke Kumar Paul and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.8 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASOKE KUMAR PAUL & ORS.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 8th April, 2014 Mr.Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Sarajit Sen, Adv.Mr.Sambhu Nath Sardar, Adv..for the petitioners Mr.Tapan Coomaar Dey, Adv.with Mr.Debsoumya Basak, Adv..for the respondents 3 & 4 Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adv.with Mr.Rapas Singha Ray, Adv..for the respondents 5 to 15 An affidavit has been filed by the petitioners pleading that due public notices have been published in the english daily The Statesman (issue dated 22nd March, 2014) and the bengali daily Sangbad Pratidin (issue dated 24th March, 2014) in compliance with the Courts order dated 14th March, 2014. The affidavit shall be retained with the records. None appears to oppose the writ petition on behalf of the parties who were aggrieved by the proposal of the Board to construct Diya Housing Project. In th...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrali Vs. M/S. Green Ply Industries Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
ORDER SHEET ITAT No.218 of 2013 G.A.No.3523 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I Versus M/S.GREEN PLY INDUSTRIES LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 8th April, 2014. Mr P.K.Bhowmick, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.C.S.Das, Adv.and Mr.Siddhartha Das, Advocate for the Respondent The Court : The subject matter of challenge both before the learned Tribunal and the CIT (Appeal) was the assessment passed under section 147/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by which the Assessing Officer had made substantial additions. One of the contentions raised by the assessee was that the reopening was sought to be effected after expiry of a period of four years and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was obliged to establish that the assessee had omitted to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Both the learned T...
Md. AllauddIn Khan, Kolkata Vs. South Dum Dum Municipality Represented ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. No. 2/08.04.2014. The record is taken up for passing order on the point of admission. The Complainant in his petition of complaint has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps stating that he, being a businessman dealing with scrap materials, submitted quotation with the O.P. “ Municipality for purchasing scrap and being highest bidder deposited a sum of Rs.52,75,000/- with the O.P. Subsequently, the O.P. by a letter dated 02.04.2012 asked the Complainant to lift the scrap but when the Complainant went to lift the scrap the employee of the O.P. did not allow the Complainant to lift the scrap and thereafter, sold the said scrap to third party on 05.03.2014 by auction which caused loss of business, financial loss, loss of goodwill, loss of interest and lossof reputation for which the Complainant prayed for direction before this Commission upon the O.Ps to refund the price of the scrap along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.46,83,000/- towards c...
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata Vs. Gopa ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 04.02.13 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Pgs, in CC Case No.68 of 2012, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against OP No.1 and dismissed on contest without cost against OP No.2. The complaint case, as filed before the Ld. Forum below, was as follows: The Complainant runs his business as the proprietor of Maa Durga Jewellery. The said business is hypothecated to the United Bank of India , Baruipur, Chowdhury Bazar Branch, Baruipur . He obtained a Burglary Insurance (Policy No. OG 10401000002894) on 05.09.2005 and the said policy was, after renewal, valid from 07. 09. 2009 to 06.09.2010. The policy was issued for Stocks (Mfg.andSale of Gold / Similar Ornaments). Some anomalies being detected by the Complainant in regard to the correct address to be recorded in the policy and the items of risk to be covered as Stock-in -Trade and Stock-in-Transit in place of Stoc...
indigo Airlines N.S.C. Bose International Airport, Kolkata Vs. Kumar S ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 211 days.In the petition for condonation of delay it has been stated that the Appellant does not have any office at the Kolkata Airport and merely a kiosk where a few employees are posted for the purpose of looking after, inter alia, passengers boarding and disembarking. The Appellant was very much surprised on 22 February, 2013 when it was informed by one of its said employees at the Kolkata Airport that a letter dated February 15, 2013 addressed to Indigo Airlines from the Respondent had been served upon them at the Kolkata Airport including a copy of an order dated February 7, 2010 passed by the Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Thereafter the Appellant contacted the Ld. Advocate and after taking certified copy filed this appeal. The complaint case bearing no.370 of 2012 was allowed ex parte. It has been stated that on enquiry the Appellant came to learn that ...
M/S. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.63,981/- and penalty of Rs.2,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The period involved in the present Appeal is June, 2008 to December, 2008. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant has submitted that the issue relates to payment of duty on additional performance bonus (heat guarantee bonus) received from their customer, namely, M/s RSP, M/s BSP and M/s RINL as additional consideration and inclusion of this amount in the assessable value of fire bricks supplied by the Applicant to these customers. In support of his contention, the ld. Consultant has referred to the Tribunals judgment in the case of MPR Refractories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2010 (262) ELT 474 (Tri.-Bang.), wherein it has been held that the performance guarantee bonus received from the customers cannot be added to the assessable value for the period prior to and afte...
M/S. Tata Motors Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. These Applications are filed by M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. seeking waiver of Customs duty of Rs.21,88,78,406/-, penalty of Rs.2.00 Crores imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscation of the imported goods with option to redeem the said goods on payment of the redemption fine of Rs.10.00 Crores under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd. for waiver of penalty of Rs.1.00 Crore imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. imported dies and fixtures against the EPCG licence No.0330020330 dt.12.06.2008 and EPCG licence No.0330021693 dt.24.10.2008 claiming benefit of concessional rate under Notification No.64/2008-Cus dated 09.05.2008. It appeared from the investigations conducted by the officers of DRI that the said dies and fixtures were removed at the premises of M/s.Caparo Engineernig India Ltd. as per letter of intent dated 2...
Vs. Bhutra Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.Defendant/
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2970 of 2013 C.S.No.339 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.M.C.KOTHARI CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.& ORS.Versus BHUTRA CONSULTANCY PVT.LTD.Plaintiffs/Petitioners Defendant/Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 7th April, 2014. For Plaintiffs/Petitioners : Mr.Soumabha Ghose with Ms.Riti Basu, Adversus Affidavit of service is on record. Mr.Ghose, learned Advocate, submits that the defendant has received notice of this application pursuant to the order dated 26th November, 2013 passed by Arijit Banerjee, J. This is a suit claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property, by execution of conveyance only. On 26th September, 2013, Patherya, J. had passed an order directing status quo to be maintained with regard to the property mentioned in prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. Arijit Banerjee, J., by his lordships order dated 26th November, 2013, extended the interim order t...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »