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.
Subir Goel Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti W.P.No.188 of 2005 Subir Goel Versus The Union of India & ORS.For the petitioner : Mr.Sourabh Banerjee, Advocate Ms.Sucharita Biswas, Advocate For the respondents : Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr.K.K. Maiti, Advocate Heard on : 30.07.2013, 20.08.2013, 03.10.2013, 28.11.2013, 03.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 Judgement on : 29.04.2014 The Court : The immediate occasion for passing the order impugned in the writ petition was a direction by this court in a writ petition filed in the year 2003. A learned single judge of this court by an order dated August 16, 2004 had inter alia directed the respondent No.5 to the said writ petition to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of the order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The said respondent was also directed to pass ...
Amitava Mitter Vs. Royal Calcutta Golf Club and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
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 Mr.Justice Arijit Banerjee A.P.O.No.17 of 2014 C.S.No.397 of 2013 Amitava Mitter versus Royal Calcutta Golf Club & ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Anand PrasadAgarwala, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, For the Respondent No.10 : Mr.Padam Khaitan, Advocate Heard on : April 7 & 17, 2014 Judgment on : April 29, 2014 Senior Advocate Mr.Partha Basu, Advocate Mr.Sudhakar Prasad, Advocate ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. Royal Calcutta Golf Club is an organization registered under the Indian Companies Act 1882 as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the club. The income and the property of the club would be applied solely towards promotion of the object of the club, in effect, it was a non-profiteering concern and run by the members of the club as per the Articles. Every ye...
Hiralal Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
WP No.337 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction HIRALAL SHAW Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 29th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Sr.Govt. Adv.Mr.T.M. Siddiqui, Adv.The Court : The petitioner seeks release of retiral and other benefits that have not been paid to the petitioner despite the petitioners retirement in 1989. At fiRs.blush, the conduct of the respondent authorities would appear to be shocking that an employee is not paid his retiral benefits for a period of nearly thirty yeaRs.But beneath the veneer of innocence that the petition presents, there is misconduct bordering on the criminal on the petitioners part. The petitioner came to court a few days before or after the scheduled date of his retirement, complained that his age had been erroneously indicated in his service records though his school certificate revealed otherwise and obtained an orde...
P.C. Roy and Co. India Priavate Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
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 Mr.Justice Arijit Banerjee A.P.O.No.48 of 2003 A.C.No.140 of 1985 P.C.Roy & Co.India Priavate Limited versus Union of India For the Appellant : Mr.Dipak Basu, Senior Advocate Mr.Moloy Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Smita Das De, Advocate Mr.Rivu Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Rabin Bag, Advocate Mr.Monoj Mondal, Advocate Heard on : March 28, April 2, 3, 8 & 9 April, 2014 Judgment on : April 29, 2014 ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. FACTS: The subject matter of dispute would relate to a license for Timber Extraction from the forest of North Andaman. The issue would relate as far as back in 1950s when the Central Government awarded a contract to the appellant for Timber Extraction from the forest of North Andaman. As per the contract, the appellant was to extract Timber from the forest in exchange of royalty to be paid to the Government. They wou...
Asha Mukul Mitra Vs. Surjeet Dash and the Secretary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.767 OF2014WITH PLA No.104 OF2011GA NO.2019 OF2012IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: RABIN KUMAR MITRA [DECD.].AND ASHA MUKUL MITRA versus SURJEET DASH & THE SECRETARY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 29th April, 2014. Mr.S.SenappeaRs.Mr.J.Kar, Mr.A.Pramanickappear. The Court : This is an application made by the caveator. He has filed an affidavit in support of the caveat and submits that the proceedings be marked as a contentious cause. His submission is justified. Another submission which is made on behalf of the applicant is that the executor and sole legatee is an outsider and that an order of injunction be passed restraining him from dealing with the flat which is the legacy and mentioned in prayer [a].of the Notice of Motion. I pass an order in terms of prayer [c].of the Notice of Motion. It is true that in extraordinary circumstances the executor has the power to deal with the assets...
Lalit Narayan Roy Vs. Md. Khalil Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
ORDER SHEET CC No.33 of 2014 With WP No.1057 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE LALIT NARAYAN ROY Versus Md.KHALIL AHMED AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Sourav Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Arnab Dutt, Adv.Mr.Pranab Kumar Dutta, Adv.Mr.Alok Kumar Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv.The Court: In terms of the order dated 28th April, 2014 the contemnor nos.1 and 2 are personally present and tender their unconditional apology for not being able to comply with the order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2013 within the time stipulated in the said order. Mr.Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnORS.produced before this Court an order passed by the contemnor no.2 on 26th April, 2014 which shows that the order has been complied with. Although the said order has been complied with belatedly, but having regard to the explanation offered on behalf of the said contemnors and having regard to the fa...
Union of India Vs. Haldia Bulk Terminal Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
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 Mr.Justice Arijit Banerjee A.P.O.No.93 of 2014 G.A.No.971 of 2014 C.S.No.88 of 2013 Union of India versus Haldia Bulk Terminal Private Limited For the Appellant : Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr.Md.T.M.Siddiqui, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Jishnu Saha, Advocate Mr.Prithviraj Sinha, Advocate Mr.Syed Adil Murshed, Advocate Heard on : April 7 and 16, 2014. Judgment on : April 29, 2014. [[[ Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. FACTS: Holdia Bulk Terminal Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as H.B.T.) a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 is mainly engaged in the field of Cargo handling operation at Haldia Dock Complex. They imported various equipments including Mobile Harbour Cranes, Wheel LoadeRs.Dumpers etc.under a scheme that would ex...
Smt. Mili Dutta and anr. Vs. Kona Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
CS No.641 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT. MILI DUTTA & ANR. Versus KONA BOSE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.M.S. Tiwari, Adv.Ms.Rakhi Shroff, Adv.The Court : After hearing the learned advocate for the parties, the following issues are settled for trial: 1. Are the properties mentioned in Schedule B (item nos.10 to14) and item no.10 of Schedule C to the plaint are debuttar properties?.2. Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief?. It is submitted on behalf of the parties that save and except the properties in dispute all other properties have been allotted to the respective shareholders and steps have been taken by the Commissioner of partition to conclude the proceedings. The Commissioner of partition is directed to conclude the proceeding in terms of the preliminary decree within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order in respect of the pr...
M/S. King and Co. (Homoeo Chemist) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
WP No.293 of 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 SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Jayanta Dasgupta, Adv.Ms.Ashmita Chatterjee, Adv.Mr.L.M.Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Chittaranjan Ghosh, Adv.The Court : Mr.Jayanta Dasgupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Labour Court acted in violation of Rule 29 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958 in proceeding with the matter without requiring the employer to explain the cause for non-appearance. It appears that the Labour Court in view of the absence of the petitioner in spite of having knowledge that the proceeding is fixed on that particular date proceeded with the matter and decided the question regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry. The petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that the Labour Court could not have proceede...
Germinda Pvt Ltd Vs. Aditya Birla Minus Worldwide Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.1274 of 2014 APOT No.199 of 2014 AP No.1150 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GERMINDA PVT LTD Versus ADITYA BIRLA MINUS WORLDWIDE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 29th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Sakya Sen, Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.Ashis Mukherjee and Ms.N.Adhya Ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Dhrubo Ghosh, Mr.Shekhar B. Saraf, Mr.Sarathi Dasgupta, Mr.Ganesh N. Jajodia Ld. Advocates for the respondent. The Court :- Parties entered into an agreement under which the respondent was to vacate the premises in question upon receipt of a sum of Rs.95 lac simultaneously agreement would on also handing provide, over in possession. case of delay The in handing over, the respondent would be obliged to pay Rs.25,000/- per day. Mr.Dhrubo Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, in his usual fairness admits, there was some delay in handing over possession. Fact remains...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »