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.
Ananda Prosad Mondal and ors. Vs. Smt. Anima Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2178 of 2013 With CS No.833 of 1979 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANANDA PROSAD MONDAL & ORS.Versus SMT. ANIMA MONDAL AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 2nd April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Pramit Kr. Ray, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mullick, Adv.Mr.Bhaskar Mitra, Adv.The Court: By an order dated 19th August, 2013 Patherya, J. had directed sale of the share of the plaintiff no.3(b) in the subject property in favour of defendant nos.1(c) to 1(f) for a consideration of Rs.15 lakhs, as appears to have been agreed by the parties in Court. In February this year the defendant No.1(d) died, as submitted by counsel for the appearing parties. The following heirs of the defendant no.1(d) are substituted:- MRS.Archana Mondal, Sr.Ashis Mondal, Smt. Luna Ghosh, with the same address as the deceased defendant. Let the substitution be carried out within three weeks from date. Any reference in this order to the d...
Superintendent, the Leprosy Mission Trust India Vs. the Wbsedcl and Ot ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Record is put up for passing order on the question of maintainability of the complaint case as raised by the OP vide their application dated 06th March 2014 which was taken up for hearing on 25th March 2014. Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP submitted that the matter as reflected in the complaint case relates to a billing dispute which should have been referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer as provided under the WBERC (Electricity Supply Code ) Regulations. It was asserted that such dispute has to be decided by the Grievance Redressal Officer and thereafter an appeal can be filed before the Ld. Ombudsman in case of dissatisfaction over the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Honble Supreme Court held in the matter of CESC Ltd “vs- M.N. Banka and Ors as reported in 1997 (1) CHN(SC) that the billing dispute should be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication and such dispute is not a matter of Consumer Forum or any other court. Moreover, the Electricity Act a...
Commr of Customs, Patna Vs. M/S. J.J. International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J, 1. This is an application filed by the Revenue seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal No.122/PAT/Customs/Appeal/2012 dated-25/05/2012. 2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the Ld.Commissioner(Appeal) has passed the order without allowing time to the Department, to place evidences, even though a specific request had been made in this regard resulting into violation of Principles of natural justice. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Order, is contrary to the specific circular issued by the Board Circular Nos. 4/2004-Cus dated-16 January, 2004 and 36/2010-Customs dated 23/09/2010, on the subject. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri K.K. Sanyal for the respondent submits that they have a strong case on merit but since the Departments plea is violation of natural justice, he has no objection, to remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) for consideration of the issue afresh. He requests that a time frame may be fixed as they have been deprived of ...
Passed in Union of India and ors. Vs. Ultra Tech Cement
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty W.P.No.2060 of 2006 Bharat Food Products & Biscuit Co.P.LTD.versus The Union of India & Anr. For Petitioner : Mr.Shyamal Sarkar, Mr.Ram Anand Agarwal, Ms.Nibedita Pal, Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Mr.A.G. Mukherjee. For Respondents : Mr.Priyabrata Mukherjee, Mr.Jyotiprokash Chatterjee. Judgment On : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. 1st April, 2014. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application is a notice dated 19th October, 2006 issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager, South-Eastern Railway for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 by which the said respondent had demanded a payment of outstanding amount of Rs.48,81,339/- from the petitioneRs.The facts, in a nutshell, are that between May, 2005 and August, 2005 the petitioners had moved various railway rakes from mining areas to various ports, i.e., from various loading stations namely Barajamda, Noamundi, ...
Smt. Santi Das Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.278 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. SANTI DAS Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st April, 2014 Ms.Shubha Dey, Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Sabhyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1985 till May, 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been an empanelled advocate for nearly 26 yeaRs.In my considered view, the office of the Legal Remembrancer owes a duty to look into the bills that have been raised by the petitioner and to say, for good reasons, to what extent she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would nec...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.247 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREE METALIKS LTD.-ANDTIRUPATI CARRIER LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 1st April, 2014. Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Sr.Adv.for petitioning creditor The Court : By order dated 13th March, 2014 an opportunity was given to the parties to reconcile the accounts. It is submitted by counsel on behalf of the petitioning creditor that no effort was made by the company to negotiate reconciliation. None has appeared on behalf of the company even at hearing this day. Therefore the case must be decided on the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties. The claim in this application arises out of transportation charges incurred by the petitioning creditor on behalf of the company for which bills have been raised but no payment made. It is for this non-payment that a statutory notice was issued on 25th February, 2013 to the company by the petitioning creditor which was received by the company and i...
Sudip Jana Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.271 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUDIP JANA Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st April, 2014 Mr.Tarique Quasimuddin, Adv.with Md.Irshad Yaqub, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.Manoj Malhotra, Adv..for the respondent no.1 & 2 Mr.Subrata Das, Adv..for the respondent no.5 Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.with Mr.Aniruddha Sinha, Adv..for the respondent no.6 Mr.C.R. Panda, Adv..for the CESC Inspection has duly been taken in compliance with order dated 25th March, 2014. It appears from the report of the Mains Engineer, Calcutta Central District, CESC Limited that on the date of inspection i.e.28th March, 2014, the petitioner was found to be in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor of the G+1 storied building at 75/2, Creek Row, Kolkata 700 014. In support of such occupation, the petitioner had also produced before the inspecting official copies of his driving licence, savings ba...
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Balaji Commodities
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.157 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT).KOLKATA VERSUS M/S.BALAJ.COMMODITIES BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 1ST APRIL, 2014. For the Customs Authority : Mr.R.Bharadwaj,Sr.Advocate Mr.T.M.Siddiqui,Advocate The Court :- This writ petition is at the instance of the department challenging an order dated 29th October, 2012 passed by the CustoMs.Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata, whereby and whereunder an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was rejected. At the very outset, the point arose whether the order rejecting an application for condonation of delay amounts to the rejection of the main proceeding as well. The aforesaid point has been settled by the Apex court in case of Shyam Sundar Sarma versus Pannalal Jaiswal & ORS.reported in AIR2005Supreme Court 226 in these words : 10. The question was considered in ext...
M/S. King and Co. (Homoeo Chemist) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP293of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.KING & Co.(HOMOEO CHEMIST) PVT.LTD.Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 1st April, 2014. Mr.J.Dasgupta, Adv.Mr.R.Guha Thakurata, Adv..for the petitioner. Mr.L.M.Ghosh, Adv.Smt.A.Chatterjee, ..for the respondent no.3. Mr.C.Ghosh, Adv.For the State. The Court: The petitioner has challenged an order no.112 dated 10th March, 2014 passed by the Learned Second Labour Court, West Bengal, in case no.47 of 2010 pending before it. It appears from an application filed by the petitioner on 13th March, 2014 before the said Court that 10th March, 2014 was the date fixed before that Court for further evidence of the company in default argument on validity of domestic enquiry. On 10th March, 2014, as it appears from the order challenged, the company did not appear on calls. The evidence of the company was closed and the case was taken up for hearin...
Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.229 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS PVT.LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT).ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 1st April, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Sudhir Meheta, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.Pradip Kr. Roy, Sr.Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.Mr.K.Dey, Adv.For the DRI. The Court : The petitioner have assailed the showcause notice on the ground that the same is issued under section 28 read assessment with is section made 124 under of the section Customs 18 of Act the before said final Act. The petitioner relies upon a judgement of this Court in the case of A.S.Syndicate (Warehousing) P. LTD.versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T.469 (Cal.) to the proposition that the show cause notice issued under section 28 or under section 124 cannot withstand unless the final assessment is made. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of...