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.
Jadavpore Co-operative Land, Kolkata Vs. Rama Rani Ghosh, Jharkhand
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member This revision is directed against the order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No. 219/2012, by which the prayer for exemption of cost of this Revisionist was rejected, fixing next date for payment of cost, i.d., further proceeding of the case ex parte, and the evidence on affidavit from the side of the Complainant as filed to be put up on the date fixed. The main contention of the Revisionist is that he promptly appeared in the case and prayed for an opportunity for contesting the case by challenging the allegations of the Complainant and 26.12.2012 was fixed for filing W.V. On 26.12.2012, there was a resolution by the Consumer Court Bar Association urging not to pass adverse orders in cases for the period from 26.12.2012 to 30.12.2012, but on which date, the Ld. District Forum fixed the case for ex parte hearing on 14.01.2013, and the OP filed W.V. along with show cause, which was allowed to be accepted subject to...
Pradyut Ghosh, Howrah Vs. the Station Manager, West Bengal State Elect ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in Case No. 22/2012, by which the complaint was rejected for taking to falsehood by the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal contending mainly that the Ld. district Forum did not consider the petition filed on behalf of Joydeb Ghosh and others who filed No Objection for electric connection to the Complainant. However, the OP No.4 also made a false statement in the W.V. that Tushar and Srikanta are alive, though they are dead. None of the OPs did plead in their respective W.V.s regarding such an anomaly on the part of the Complainant, otherwise the Complainant could have taken recourse of amendment of the complaint. The entire mistake has been done by the Lawyer and his Clerk concerned, and the Complainant had no intention to adopt falsehood. Instead, the Ld. District Forum ought to ...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. Shiv Shakti Mahato and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
AP No.1138 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction L & T FINANCE LIMITED Versus SHIV SHAKTI MAHATO & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd April, 2014. Ms.S.Saha, Adv.appears The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The Receiver appointed in the matter has taken possession of the asset covered by the agreement, but despite inviting offers therefor no bids have been received. The petitioner reports that an award has been passed in the petitioners favour on March 8, 2014. Since no bids have been received for the asset and the award is likely to become executable in the near future, AP No.1138 of 2013 which is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is disposed of by confirming the subsisting order of injunction which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the asset in the usual couRs.of business unless interdicted by an order of an appropriate forum. ...
RobIn Paul Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET CA36OF2014CP NO.324 OF2001CA NO.173 OF2008CA NO.293 OF2004CA NO.314 OF2008CA NO.419 OF2006IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: NEW RED BANK TEA Co.PVT.LTD.(IN LIQN.) AND ROBIN PAUL VS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 2nd April, 2014. MR.A.MITRA,ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER MR.M.GHOSH, MS.M.SEN,ADVOCATES FOR OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR MR.M.SARKAR,ADVOCATE W.B.S.E.D.Co.LTD.The Court : This day matter has appeared on mentioning of the contributories and WBSEDCL. It is submitted on behalf of the licencing company that the earlier agreement between the company (in liquidation) and the licencing company was terminated by notice dated 15.12.2003. Admittedly on 15.12.2003 the company was in liquidation, as by order dated 8th July, 2003 the company had been wound up, therefore any notice of whatever nature was required to be served on the official liquidator. Admittedly the letter dated 15.12.2003 has been served on t...
West Bengal Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S.Plasto Pack and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.191 of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.Versus M/S.PLASTO PACK & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 2nd April, 2014. Appearance : Mr.S.Sarkar, Adv.for the plaintiff Ms.Suparna Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Sulekha Mitra, Adv.for the defendant No.2 The Court: In a suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered the witness of the plaintiff was called upon to produce documents to substantiate the claim of Rs.5 lacs. Such claim was on account of damages. The plaintiff claimed that since the defendants refused to pay for the goods after obtaining the same on credit, it had to close down such nature of business. For such purpose the plaintiff claimed damages at Rs.5 lacs. The witness in reply stated that in the event the Court directs, the documents will be produced. The suit is of 1996. The defendants prayed that the Court directs the plaintiff to produce such ...
Bal Kishan Kedia and ors. Vs. Cesc Ltd and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA9702014 WP10082013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BAL KISHAN KEDIA AND ORS.Versus CESC LTD AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 2nd April, 2014. Mr.Subhankar Nag, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Subir Sanyal, Adv., Mr.Somnath Bose, Adv., for the respondent. The Court : This application is for recalling an order passed on March 25, 2014 by which the writ petition, out of which the present proceeding arises, was dismissed for default. On going through the petition I am satisfied that the petitioners went unrepresented on that date not due to any deliberate laches or lapses on their part but because of reasons beyond their control. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal is recalled. Let the writ petition be restored to its original file and number. In this proceeding, the petitioners challenge the legality of demand made against them for recovery of dues pertaining to an HUF in couRs.of the year 2003. A...
Mrinmoy Roy Vs. Jyotirmoy Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
GA No.4079 of 2008 with CS No.651 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Mrinmoy Roy Versus Jyotirmoy Roy & ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 2nd April 2014 Appearance: Mr.S.Sarkar, Advocate for the plaintiff-petitioner The Court: At the second call none appears to oppose this application. Hence I pass a final decree declaring the shares of the parties in accordance with the preliminary decree in respect of premises No.35/1/1, Ramanath Kabiraj Lane, Kolkata 700012. I record that the Engineer-cum-Commissioner of Partition has opined that the property is impartible. In 2012 the Engineer-cum-Commissioner of Partition had caused valuation of the above property at Rs.41,24,779.90. Assuming a marginal escalation in the price of the property after 2012 let the valuation as of today be taken as Rs.42,00,000/- which is taken as the reserve price. Since the property is impartible it has to be sold. I appoint Mr.Madhusudan Saha Ray, Advocate of ...
Sova Tea Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Supriya Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET ACO NO.50 OF2014APO NO.99 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : SOVA TEA CO.PVT.LTD.Versus SUPRIYA DAS AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 2nd April, 2014. MR.JAYANTA KR.MITRA,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.P.K.ROY, MR.DIPAK CHAKRABORTY, MR.D.RAHA,ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT MR.SANNOY DAS, MR.S.R.KAKRANIA, MR.S.SENI, MR.S.KUNDU, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT The Court : This 10F appeal has been filed from the order dated 4th March, 2014 when, according to counsel for the respondent, the parties were to inform the Company Law Board whether settlement had failed or had fructified. From a reading of the said order one cannot come to any conclusion of the aforesaid. But what is relevant is the recording in the said order wherefrom it appears that C.A.No.466 of 2013 has been listed on 21st April, 2014 for hearing. This application whatever be its faith ought to be heard out by the Company Law Board. It is true that the main mat...
M/S.Monarch India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashirbad Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET ACO452014 APOT1302014 CP4482013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.MONARCH INDIA PVT.LTD.Versus ASHIRBAD FOOD PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 2nd April, 2014. Mr.Shiv Sankar Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Dipak Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr.Arik Banerjee, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate Mr.Sachchidananda Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : The respondent supplied flour to the biscuit company the appellant above-named. The appellant presumably consumed the goods and defaulted in making payment of the value. The respondent served a statutory notice of demand. The appellant reacted by making a part payment. The appellant did not, however, reply to the statutory notice of demand. Subsequent payments were not forthcoming that gave rise to the petition for winding-up at the instance of the respondent. Before the learned single Judge,...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.284 of 2013 CA No.218 of 2013 With BIFR No.52 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction In the matter of: SHRI MANJUSHA PAPER MILLS LTD.( IN LIQN.) AND SYNDICATE BANK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 2nd April, 2014. Appearance:Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Adv.and Mr.N.Thakur, Adv..for petitioner. Mr.J.Rakshit, Adv..for P.F.Authority. Mr.N.K.Rakshit, Adv..for Indian Overseas Bank. Mr.Indranil Nandi, Adv.with Mr.D.P.Samanta, Adv..for PIC Up. Mr.Amiya Kumar Sur, Adv..for IFCI LTD.& IDBI Bank. Mr.Tilok Basu, Sr.Adv.with Mr.A.Dasadhikari, Adv..for Official Liquidator. The Court : This is an application filed under Rule 164 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. The company (in liquidation) is represented by the Official Liquidator who called for claims of the secured creditors in 2004. The applicant herein, namely, Syndicate Bank had obtained a decree in January, 2004 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi and on basis thereof a claim was lodged. The said...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »