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.
Jaspal Singh Chandhok Vs. Ashoke Kumar Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before : The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.1248 of 2014 C.S.No.994 of 1990 Jaspal Singh Chandhok versus Ashoke Kumar Poddar & ORS.For the Defendant No.1 : Ms.Noel Banerjee, Advocate Mr.A.Mondal, Advocate For the Plaintiff : Ms.Sonali Mukhopadhay, Advocate For the Defendant No.3 : Ms.S.Parveen, Advocate Heard on : May 02, 2014 Judgment on : May 06, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit which was for declaration and partition was pending since 1990. The witness action in the suit commenced before me. The witness of the plaintiff was examined in Chief on January 31, 2014 and was cross-examined on February 28, 2014. The cross-examination of such witness concluded on that date. The plaintiff produced only one witness on his behalf. The Defendant No.1 produced himself as his witness. The Defendant No.1 was examined in Chief on March 6, 2014 and cross-examined on March 20, 2014. The cross-examination of the Def...
Maheswar Pramanick and ors. Vs. Chabirani Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.84 of 1977 Maheswar Pramanick & ORS.versus Chabirani Sadhukhan & ORS.For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Lalratan Mondal, Advocate For the Defendants : Mr.Pradip Kr. Ghosh, Senior Advocate Mr.Ashish Chakroborty, Advocate Heard on : March 14, 2014 Judgment on : May 06, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit was for eviction of the defendants, accounts, and decree for compensation and damages for wrongful occupation. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Six issues were framed by the Order dated June 22, 2007. The plaintiffs adduced evidence through one witness. The defendants did not examine any witness. On behalf of the plaintiffs various documents were marked as exhibits. The plaintiffs sought eviction of the defendants on the ground of expiry of sublease. By a registered sub-lease dated December 16, 1965 the origina...
Great Ocean Enterprise S.A. and anr. Vs. the Owners and Parties Intres ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.3154 of 2012 AS No.5 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Admiralty Jurisdiction GREAT OCEAN ENTERPRISE S.A.& ANR. Versus THE OWNERS & PARTIES INTRESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V.DEVI GLORY I BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 6th May, 2014. Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Mr.S.Prosad for crew membeRs.Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Ms.Sanchari Chakraborti for erstwhile owner of the vessel. The Court : The only reason for mentioning of this matter by Counsel for the crew members is that two of the crew members who reside in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh have been summoned as witness to prove their claim. The witness action though continuing is in fits and starts. Adjournments are taken by the owners of the subject vessel which is not benefiting the crew members who are unable to sustain themselves firstly without payment of wages and secondly in an alien city. Therefore, the proceedings should continue on a day to day basis. It is submitted by Counsel for the owners that the personnel of the...
Bhandari Builders Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
CS No.616 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BHANDARI BUILDERS LTD.Versus HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 6th May, 2014. The Court : A prayer for adjournment is made on behalf of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 seeks extension of time to disclose documents. On 25th February, 2014, time was allowed to the defendant no.2 to disclose documents within a period of two weeks from that date upon payment of cost 200 GMs to the plaintiff to enable the defendant no.2 to rely upon the said documents. The defendant no.2 has neither paid the cost nor disclosed any document. The defendant no.2 was not represented on 29th April, 2014. However, considering the nature of the prayer as and by way of a last opportunity, the defendant no.2 shall be permitted to disclose the documents on or before 14th of May, 2014 subject to payment of cost 200 GMs to State Legal Aid Services Authority ...
Malvika Foundation and ors. Vs. Eiilm Foundation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.52 OF2014WITH CS NO.251 OF2013GA NO.3063 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MALVIKA FOUNDATION AND ORS.Versus EIILM FOUNDATION AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 6th May, 2014. Mr.S.N.Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.A.Mukherjee, Mr.D.Jainappear. Mr.P.K.Ghosh, Mr.T.Bose, senior advocates, Mr.D.Dutta, Ms.V.Bhatiaappear. Mr.R.L.MitraappeaRs.Mr.N.Dasgupta, Ms.P.Dharappear. Mr.M.BoseappeaRs.Mr.C.GuptaappeaRs.The Court : The principal prayer in this application was for audit of the accounts of Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management [EIILM].since the financial year 2009-2010. Mr.P.K.Ghosh, learned senior advocate for the fiRs.defendant has taken me through the documents appended to the affidavit in opposition to the earlier interim application, filed on behalf of the second defendant. A series of e-mail correspondence has been brought to my notice. I form a concrete opinion from this correspo...
Dilip Kumar De @ Dilip De Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.354 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DILIP KUMAR DE @ DILIP DE Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 6th May, 2014 Mr.Himadri Barua, Advocate with Mr.Sunand Mohan Ghosh, Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Sabhyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1983 till May, 2011. He is aggrieved because the bills raised by him 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 28 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 he is not entitled to the fees charged by him and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as...
Ashok Kumar Jhunjhunwala and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.262 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASHOK KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA & ORS.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 6th May, 2014 Mr.Sandipta Bose, Adv.with Ms.Ankita Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Basudeb Biswas, Adv..for the petitioners Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv..for the State The respondents having not furnished certified copy of a registered deed of sale to the petitioneRs.this writ petition has been presented seeking an order on the respondents, inter alia, to forthwith furnish certified copy of the said deed. It appears that the relevant pages in Volume 189 of Book 1 relating to the said deed are torn and certified copy of the said deed cannot be furnished by the Registrar, respondent no.2 herein. The petitioners have annexed to this writ petition a typed copy of the alleged registered deed, appearing at pages 25 to 36 of the writ petition. I had directed service of notice on the vendors (resp...
Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd, and anr Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.353 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.MERCURY EXPORTERS AND MANUFACTURING PVT.LTD.& ANR Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 6th May, 2014 Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Chanchal Kumar Dutt, Advocate Mr.Provat Sil, Advocate ..for the petitioners Mr.Joy Saha, Advocate with Mr.Victor Dutta, Advocate ..for the respondents The challenge in this writ petition is to a notice dated 22nd February, 2010 issued by Punjab National Bank. Although the said notice was issued in purported exercise of power conferred by Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act).the bank did not take possession of the secured asset; instead, by the said notice it conveyed its decision of taking possession of the secured asset if the petitioners failed to deliver possessi...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and anr Vs. Puskar Mal Dokania and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT211OF2014GA1342of 2014 GA1362of 2014 WITH WP989OF2011BHARAT COKING COAL LTD & ANR Versus PUSKAR MAL DOKANIA & ORS BEFORE :The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date : 6th May, 2014. Mr.S.Basu, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.Mitra, Advocate for appellant Ms.Vineeta Meheria, Advocate for respondents The Court :- After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the explanations given in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. We, thus condone the delay in filing the appeal. GA1342of 2014 is thus disposed of. Considering the prayer for interim relief, it appears that the policy has not been questioned in the writ application. Mandamus has been issued in terms of the prayer made in clause (b) of the writ application, which is as follows;b. A writ of and/or in...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataxvi Vs. M/S Kankar Brother Poultry ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.945 of 2014 G.A.No.946 of 2014 ITAT No.23 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVI Versus M/S KANKAR BROTHER POULTRY FIRM BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 6th May, 2014. Ms.Soma Chatterjee, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate for the Respondent The Court : The application for condonation of delay being G.A.No.945 of 2014 is treated as on the days list. This is an application for condonation of delay of 358 days. The diligence on the part of the appellant is amply demonstrated in three paragraphs of the application for condonatiion of delay. Those paragraphs are paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. They read as follows: 4. The petitioner states and submits that the copy of the said order of the learned Tribunal dated September 27, 2012 is received by the office of your petitioner on December 3, 2012 and as such petitioner had ...