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.
Binita Bandyopadhyay Vs. Subrata Alias Somnath Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER SHEET TS No.16 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: AMARENDRA NATH RAY (DECEASED) AND BINITA BANDYOPADHYAY -VSSUBRATA ALIAS SOMNATH RAY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 28th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.Mr.S.K.Ash, Adv.The Court : This is an application for grant of Letters of Administration of the estate by one of the beneficiaries under the Will. The petitioner is the daughter of the testator. The Will does not mention the name of any executor. The testator did not appoint any executor in the Will. In view thereof, this instant application has been filed by one of the beneficiaries for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the whole estate of the testator. One of the attesting witnesses, namely, Sagnik Mukherjee has been examined. The said attesting witness on oath has stated that the Will has been duly executed in his presence. The witness f...
Saregama India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Alkesh Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
GA No.3009 of 2013 with CS No.347 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Saregama India LTD.& ORS.Versus Alkesh Gupta & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 28th April 2014 Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.S.Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.S.Ghose, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Sayantan Basu, Advocate Mr.Arindam Chandra, Advocate Mr.Souvik Ghosh, Advocate for the respondents The Court: The facts of this case are identical to GA No.660 of 2012 connected with CS No.85 of 2012, GA No.1195 of 2012 and GA No.1360 of 2012 (Saregama India LTD.& ORS.versus Dishnet Wireless LTD.& Ors.).The above applications were disposed of by this Court by an order dated 7th April 2014 in the following terMs.The Court : The application [GA No.1360 of 2012].is disposed of. Hence, let it be deleted from the list. One is an application for interim reliefs. The other is an application by the seventh defendant for dismissal of the suit and for vacation of the in...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataxv, Kolkata Vs. Susil Kumar Chopra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2834 of 2013 I.T.A.T.No.142 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XV, KOLKATA Versus SUSIL KUMAR CHOPRA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA -AndThe Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 28th April, 2014. For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Dutta with Ms.Sukla Das Chandra, Adversus For Respondent : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhratosh Majumdar, Adv.[Amicus Curiae].The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgement and order dated 12th April, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue has come up in appeal. Mr.Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the total income which was the subject matter of dispute was Rs.9,62,104/-. Therefore, the tax effect is much less than Rs.10 lakhs. He submitted that going by the circular containing Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9th February, 2011, the department was precluded from filing ...
Hollyfield Traders Pvt Ltd Vs. Surya Mansions Pvt Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1 ORDER SHEET ACO No.68 of 2014 APOT No.178 of 2014 CP No.472 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HOLLYFIELD TRADERS PVT LTD Versus SURYA MANSIONS PVT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 28th April, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, ld. Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee and Ms.Lopita Banerjee Ld. Advocates for the respondent. Mr.Mounak Sengupta, ld. Advocate For the Company. The Court :- An amount of Rs.4 crore was due and payable on account of infructuous agreement for sale. The Company paid a sum of Rs.50 lac and defaulted in paying the balance amount. The statutory notice of demand was not replied to. The Company initially appeared in the winding up proceeding, then disappeared, at least they were not present on the day when Lordship finally claiming to be heard a the Director matter. of the One Sujit Company His Arya filed an application for intervention. According to the inte...
Ashish Kumar Mitra Vs. Suparna Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER TS No.5 of 2008 PLA No.80 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction IN THE GOODS OF: SMT. NAMITA MITRA (DECEASED) ASHISH KUMAR MITRA VS SUPARNA MITRA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 28th April 2014. Appearance: Mr.Suman Kumar Dutt, Advocate Mr.S.Senguupta, Advocate Mr.Arnab Dutt, Advocate. COURT: This is an application for grant of letters of administration attached to the original Will taken out by one of the beneficiaries of the last Will and Testament of Smt. Namita Mitra, widow of Shambhu Nath Mitra. Since the executor died before the application could be taken up, this application has been filed by one of the beneficiaries under the Will. Mr.Suman Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary submits that initially the probate was granted in common form but subsequently the said order was set aside. The beneficiary as well as one of the attesting witnesses have been examined on commission. Mr.Dutt has referred to ...
R.K.P. Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hemraj Mahavir Prosad Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Before : The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.937 of 2014 C.S.No.568 of 1992 R.K.P.Udyog LTD.versus Hemraj Mahavir Prosad PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Ashish Chakroborty, Advocate Ms.Sunanda Mukherjee, Advocate For the Defendant No.9 : Mr.Sarathi Dasgupta, Advocate For the Defendant Nos.17A, 17B, 17C : Mr.S.K.Tiwary, Advocate Mr.R.K.Pandey, Advocate Heard on : April 24, 2014 Judgment on : April 28, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The present application concerned the Defendant No.9 in a suit for eviction pending since 1992. The plaintiff sought exemption under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.9. The Defendant No.9 died on March 23, 2008. According to the plaintiff, the present application was made immediately after it became aware of the death of the Defendant No.9. The present application was contested by the...
Surendra Nayak Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.632 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SURENDRA NAYAK Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 28th April, 2014. Appearance : Mr.J.Dasgupta, Adv.Mr.Balaram Patra, Adv. for the respondent No.3 The Court : This writ application is directed against an award passed by the 2nd Labour Court, West Bengal, Calcutta in Case No.62/99 under section 10(1B)(d).The Tribunal decided the matter afresh consequent upon an order of remand passed by this Court on 24th August, 2011 on the ground that the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the appointment letter issued by the Indian Press Exchange Limited on 31st March, 1999. The order of reference shows that the dispute was raised with regard to the dismissal of the writ petitioner from the service of the private respondent. The petitioner contended that he was working in the Birla Group of Companies. He was initially appointed on 28th of March 1...
integrated Equipment and Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dena Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.3010 OF2013WITH CS NO.353 OF2013GA NO.607 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE INTEGRATED EQUIPMENT & INFRA SERVICES PVT.LTD.Versus DENA BANK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 28th April, 2014. Mr.Joy SahaappeaRs.Mr.A.Mitra, Ms.S.Bhattacharya.appear. The Court : This is an application by the defendant bank [GA No.607 of 2014].for vacation of orders dated 27th September, 2013 and 18th November, 2013 passed by this Court in the interim application [GA No.3010 of 2013].The later order is more important. After discussing all the issues involved this court passed the following order : After having considered the conduct of the parties especially the letter of the plaintiff dated 10th June, 2013, and the reply of Dena Bank dated 25th July, 2013, I am of the opinion that if the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs.25 crores by 31st January, 2014, and another Rs.25 crores by 28th February, 2014 and the balance of Rs.64.05 b...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataxvii Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
ORDER SHEET ITAT No.183 of 2013 G.A.No.3424 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVII Versus DILIP KUMAR ROY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 28th April, 2014. Ms.A.G.Gutgutia, Adv.for the Appellant Mr.Pramit Bag, Advocate/Amicus Curie The Court : The appeal has been taken up for hearing ex-parte. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service. Affidavit-ofService filed be kept on record. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21st May, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal. The facts and circumstances of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: The assessee was a partner of the firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/S.D.K.Roy & BrotheRs.He took over the business of...
M/S. Dean System Vs. M/S. R.M. Sinha and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
A.P.No.644 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.DEAN SYSTEM Versus M/S.R.M.SINHA & Co.Appearance Mr.D.N.Sharma, Adv.Mr.Priyabrata Ghosh, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : April 28, 2014. The Court : The petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable since there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. The petitioner relies on an agreement in the form of a deed of undertaking executed by the parties on March 21, 2011. Clause 3.0 of the agreement provides as follows: 3.0 All the terms and conditions of the original contract as specified by the ultimate Client are also accepted and to be followed by the sub-contractor. This agreement is based on back to back basis including payment. At paragraph 7 of the petition, the petitioner has set out clause 25 of the agreement between the respondent and the ultimate client. The petitioner says that since clause 3.0 of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »