Kolkata Court May 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.
Ankit Metal and Power Ltd and ors. Vs. Settlement Commission and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.392 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANKIT METAL & POWER LTD & ORS.Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 8th May, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Sudhir Meheta, Adv.Mr.R.N. Das, Adv.MRS.Santa Mitra, Adv.The Court : The matter involves an interesting point of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions contained under Section 32O of the previously invoked Central Excise Act 1944. The petitioner the provisions pertaining to the settlement commission and have been exonerated from being prosecuted upon imposition of penalty. A further show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner alleging the non-payment of the duty leviable on the transactions made by the petitioner. The petitioner further approached the settlement commission in taking out an application under section 32E of the Central Excise Act making a full and true disclosures and deposited the duty in compliance of ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Vikash Kumar Reddy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
A.P.No.669 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus VIKASH KUMAR REDDY & ANR. Appearance Mr.S.Mukherjee Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : May 8, 2014. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite service. The petitioner claims that an amount in excess of Rs.15.58 lakh is due in terms of the agreement, including a sum in excess of Rs.6.84 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. The petitioner says that the respondents claim that the vehicle financed under the agreement has met with an accident and the respondents have refused to make any further payment in terms of the agreement as the respondents claim that the dealer had apparently not given the respondents some papeRs.The petitioner says that since the petitioner is not involved with the dealer, the petitioner should not be penalised for any perceived fault on the part of the dealer. There will be an order in terms of prayer (c)...
Gourav Intertrade Pvt Ltd Vs. Qumex Moulds Pvt Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.118 of 2014 CP No.100 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GOURAV INTERTRADE PVT LTD Versus QUMEX MOULDS PVT LTD -AndAPO No.133 of 2014 CP No.100 of 2013 PRASANNA KUMAR NAHATA -VsQUMEX MOULDS PVT LTD & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 8th May, 2014. For the Appellant: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Ms.Manju Agarwal Mr.Biswanath Chatterjee, ld. Advocates . For the Respondent: Mr.Anirban Ray, Mr.Arnab Mitra and Mr.P.Sinha, ld. Advocates ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J :- These two appeals would relate to one winding up proceeding in which the appellant in APO118of 2014 was the petitioning creditor whereas the appellant in APO133of 2014 was the supporting creditor. The brief facts as it reveals from the record would depict, the appellant in the fiRs.matter served a statutory notice of demand on the Company, inter-alia, claiming for refund of the accommodation loan that they gave to the Compa...
M/S. MerlIn Projects Ltd. Vs. Md. Sanaullah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ALP No.12 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION M/S.Merlin Projects LTD.Versus Md.Sanaullah & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 8th May 2014 Appearance: Mr.S.Bhattacharya, Advocate The Court: This is a Clause 13 application. It is taken out by Merlin Projects Limited, the plaintiff in ejectment suit No.165 of 2009 pending before the Court of the learned Second Civil Judge (Junior Division).Sealdah (Merlin Projects Limited versus Md.Sanaullah & Ors.).An affidavit of service is on record. It shows that the papers were posted to the respondents on 29th April 2014. The first, second, third and fifth respondents have refused service. Since the other respondents are within Kolkata and the documents were posted about 10 days ago, I presume service upon the other respondents. None comes to oppose this application. The complaint of the petitioner is that an application under Order I Rule 10 made by the petitioner is pending for more than one ye...
Mid Town Developers Vs. Shyamal Adhicary and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.1035 of 2014 CS No.78 of 1994 GA No.1034 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MID TOWN DEVELOPERS Versus SHYAMAL ADHICARY & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 8th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Amitava Das, Adv.Mr.Suprotim Laha, Adv.Mr.Varun Garg, Adv.Ms.H.Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Probal Mukherjee, Adv.The Court :- Two applications were made seeking recall of an order dated July 11, 2005. One application was a composite application for recalling the order dated July 11, 2005 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 explaining the delay. The other application was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the suit was dismissed for default on July 11, 2005. They became aware of such order of dismissal in the last week of June, 2013. Immediately thereafter, they sought to contact the learned Advocate-on-record who stated that, he was not aware about t...
M/S. Saj Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen W.P.No.534 of 2011 M/S.Saj Industries PVT.LTD.versus The State of West Bengal & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.Soumya Majumdar, Mr.D.Dan, Mr.Dipankar Ghosh For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Saibal Mukherjee Heard on : 21.03.2014, 21.04.2014. Judgment on : 8th May, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- This writ application is directed against an order passed by the FiRs.Labour Court on 23rd March, 2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the maintainability of the application filed by the private respondent workman under Section 10(1B) as a preliminary issue. The writ petitioner contends that the private respondent workman was appointed on 8th October, 2000 in the Managerial Rank with effect from 10th October, 2000. The said appointment was initially on probation for a period of one year. The nature of the job to be performed by the respondent No.4 involved periodic an...
Sundeep Bhutoria and ors. Vs. Wigan and Leigh College (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
GA No.177 of 2014 CS No.12 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUNDEEP BHUTORIA & ORS.Versus WIGAN & LEIGH COLLEGE (INDIA) LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 8th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Sarbapriya Mukherjee, Advocate S.Banerjee, Advocate Saumabho Ghosh, Advocate D.R.Basu, Advocate Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate P.C.Pal Chowdhury, Advocate Saurav Chaudhuri, Advocate Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate Deep Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.D.Banerjee, Advocate The Court: Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am able to come to a concrete finding that the defendant vacated the premises in question in early August, 2013. A lot of disputes has been raised on behalf of the defendant with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs for maintenance, electricity, service and repair charges from September, 2012 till vacation of the property by the defendant. It was said that electricity was ...
Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the O and P Int. in the Vessels ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET AS No.4 of 2013 GA No.3275 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT.LTD.versus THE O & P INT. IN THE VESSELS M.V.KAMAL, XXIII AND M.V.KAMAL-XXIV BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 8th May, 2014. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Ms.Arunima Moitra, Adv.for the plaintiff Mr.T.K.Bose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Somnath Bose, Adv.for Mumbai Port Trust Mr.Subhojit Roy, Adv.for the Receiver Mr.Rajarshi Rai Choudhury, Adv.for M. Pallonji & Co.PVT.LTD.The Court : Best endeavours were made to sell M.V.Kamal, XXIII and M.V.Kamal-XXIV. Advertisements were also caused to be published by the plaintiff in Sr.Lanka, Singapore and Bangladesh after advertisements were published in India. No offer or negligible offer has been received but no offer has been received from any of the foreign lands. The only offer received in fact is from one M. Pallonji & Co.PVT.LTD.for purchase of M.V.Kamal, XXIII and M.V.Kamal-XXIV at Rs.65 lakh e...
Kolkata Port Trust and anr. Vs. the Deputy Director of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti May 8, 2014 WP37of 2013 Kolkata Port Trust & Anr. versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) II, Kolkata & ORS.Mr.N.K.Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.Gupta, Advocate Mr.V.Tibrewal, Advocate Mr.A.Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners MRS.Smita Das Dey, Advocate for the respondents The Court :- By this writ petition the petitioners have inter alia prayed for an order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to forthwith refund the whole of the fringe benefit tax which was allegedly mistakenly paid by the petitioner no.1 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner no.1 is an autonomous body administered by a Board of Trustees by the Central Government. The petitioner no.1 paid advance tax in respect of the fringe benefit for the said assessment year as mentioned before. Subsequently, the petitioner was gran...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.152 of 2014 CP No.295 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : EASTERN METALIK FORGINGS PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 8th May, 2014. Mr.Rajesh Singh, Adv.for the petitioners Mr.Swagata Datta, Adv.for R.O.C.The Court : Two objections have been raised by the Central Government. FiRs.relates to increase of authorised share capital by the transferee company which the applicant transferee company is ready and willing to do on sanction of the scheme of arrangement. The second objection raised is with regard to the treatment of accounts as per Accounting Standard 14. Such accounting standard is not applicable in cases of scheme of arrangement but will apply in the scheme of amalgamation. Nonetheless accounting standard as per the guidelines formulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountant must be followed. The applicants are ready and willing to abide by such accounting standard as laid by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »