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.
Dinesh Mishra Vs. the Kolkata Port Trust and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.421 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE DINESH MISHRA Versus THE KOLKATA PORT TRUST & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 16th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Milan Bhattacharya, Adv. for the petitioner Mr.Nilay Sengupta, Adv.Ms.Sujata Mukherjee, Adv. for the respondent KOPT Ms.Sipm Majumdar, Adv.Ms.Prativa Ghatak, Adv. for the State of WB The Court: Two points are raised by Mr.Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner. Firstly, he contends that after the election was declared by the notification dated 5th March, 2014 and the Model Code of Conduct came into force, the Kolkata Port Trust was not entitled to take any step for the purpose of issuance of work orders for securing eviction of occupiers as well as to enter into any contract; secondly, the police could not have been approached by the Kolkata Port Trust for seeking assistance to evict him. None of the points raised by Mr.Bhattacharya appear t...
Sri Arun Kumar Deb Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.427 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.ARUN KUMAR DEB Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 16th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Durga Sankar Mullick, Adv. for the petitioner Mr.Sabyasachi Roychoudhury, Adv. for the State The Court: The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal 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 quite some time. 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 are found to be admissible. That woul...
M/S. Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and S ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2014
1. The issue involved in Appeal No.E/A/460/01, is the eligibility of the credit on furnace oil used for generation of electricity, consumed in township and the credit taken on the inputs received in short quantity. The total demand in respect of the Appeal is of Rs.10,25,424/-, out of which, demand of Rs.63,101/- relates to the excess credit by the Assessee on the inputs received short. The issue involved in Appeal No.E/A/461/01 comprises of eligibility of credit of Rs.9,93,545/- on the furnace oil used for generation of electricity used in the township. Rs.8,988/- relates to the excess credit taken on the inputs received short and Rs.96,662/- relates to the credit taken on the documents other than the duplicate copy of the invoice. 2. The ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that only 2.39% of the total electricity from grid has been used in township and therefore, the reversal of credit in excess of 2.39% of the furnace oil is not liable to be reversed. In this regard, she ha...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Kolkata Vs. M/S. J. L. Morrison ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Honble Justice Sudip Ahluwalia ITA No.168 of 2011 GA No.1541 of 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- I, KOLKATA Versus M/S.J.L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD.Advocate for the Appellant: Md.Nizumuddin, Advocate. Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.N.K. Poddar, Senior Advocate Mr.A.Gupta, Advocate, Mr.V.Tibrewal, Advocate. Heard on: 24.2.2014, 19.3.2014, 1.4.2014, 2.4.2014, .4.2014, 4.4.2014, 7.4.2014, 8.4.2014, 9.4.2014, 16.4.2014, 17.4.2014, 21.4.2014, 22.4.2014 and 23.4.2014. Judgment delivered on: 15.05.2014 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is a judgement and order dated 13th April, 2011 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the assessees appeal setting aside the order dated 1st March, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (...
Niranjan Lal Todi Vs. Nandlal Todi and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.483 of 2010 AP No.1121 of 2013 NIRANJAN LAL TODI -VERSUS- NANDLAL TODI AND OTHERS For the Petitioner: Mr Joy Saha, Adv., Ms Rakhi Shroff, Adv., Ms Debjani Ghoshal, Adv.For the Respondent No.1: For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr Reetobrata Mitra, Adv., Mr Manik Das, Adv.Mr Samit Talukdar, Sr Adv., Mr Shaunak Mitra, Adv., Mr Vivek Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Hearing concluded on: May 13, 2014. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: May 15, 2014. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : These petitions for the removal of an arbitrator are a sequel to a suit filed by the petitioner and his son in the year 2010 which was disposed of by allowing a plea under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 carried by two of the defendants to the suit. The object of the petitioners present exercise may be difficult to comprehend without reference to the suit and the order by which it was disposed of upon the subject-matter of the su...
Smt. Nilanjana Biswas Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti W.P.No.293 of 2012 Smt. Nilanjana Biswas Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.For the petitioner : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.L.C. Bihani, Sr.Advocate N.C.Bihani, Advocate L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate A. Mishra, Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, Sr.Advocate and Government Pleader Ms.Tanushree Dasgupta, Advocate Mr.Jayanta Mohanti, Advocate Heard on : 21.01.2014 and 11.02.2014 Judgement on : 15.05.2014 The Court : By this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw and cancel the order dated February 29, 2012 which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-8, a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith allow the relevant flat of the petitioner to be converted into freehold from leasehold and to allow mixed occupancy in respect of the same and for o...
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Priya Gupta and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
TA No.88 of 2014 T No.177 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD.& ANR. Versus PRIYA GUPTA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Anindya Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Sarbapriyo Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Saumabho Ghosh, Advocate Ms.R.Kajaria, Advocate Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Gaurav Khaitan, Advocate Ms.P.Basu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.R.Bachawat, Advocate Ms.Soma Rahman, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 Mr.R.Bhattacharya, Advocate Ms.Lopa Mudra Moitra, Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 The Court: This suit and the application in support thereof are concerned with a movie Raja Natwarlal proposed to be released on 29th August, 2014. The plaintiffs allege that, in the run up to the release, the second plaintiff has ...
South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Videocon Industries Limited and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
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 G.A. No.1428 of 2014 A.P.O.T. No.227 of 2014 C.S. No.392 of 2013 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Videocon Industries Limited & Ors. For the Appellants : Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. Jishnu Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate Mr. Partha Bose, Advocate For the Respondents No.1 & 2 : Heard on : May 8,13 and 14, 2014 Judgment on : May 15, 2014 Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Ms. Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate Mr. Debojyoti Datta, Advocate Mr. Rishad Medora, Adovcate Ms. Reha Mitra, Advocate Ms. Nirvika Dutta, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Jain, Advocate ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE : THERMAL POWER PROJECT : The respondent no.1, Videocon Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Videocon), is a well-known multinational company in the field of electronic gadgets. They ventured to set up...
Smt. Suman Bakshi and ors. Vs. Arandhana Investment Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.1221 of 2014 C.S.No.250 of 1995 Smt. Suman Bakshi & ORS.versus Arandhana Investment LTD.For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Kuldip Mallik, Advocate Ms.Sanchari Chakroborty, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Soibalendu Bhowmick, Advocate Mr.Lalratan Mondal, Advocate Heard on : May 06, 2014 Judgment on : May 15, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. In a suit of 1995 the sole defendant applied for amendment of its written statement. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that, Courts must be liberal in allowing amendment more so when amendment to written statement was sought. The proposed amendments to the written statement did not alter the nature and character of the written statement. The proposed amendments merely explained the case of the defendant in greater detail. According to the defendant, the trial of the suit did not commence. The fiRs.w...
M/S. Ashoke Enamel and Glass Work Pvt Ltd and anr. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.338 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ASHOKE ENAMEL & GLASS WORK PVT LTD & ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 15th May, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Nirmal Chowdhury, Adv. for the petitioner Mr.P.K. Roy, Adv.Mr.T.M. Siddiqui, Adv. for respondent Mr.Kaushik De, Adv. for the respondent No.3 The Court : Let supplementary affidavit filed in Court today be kept on record. The order-in-original dated 31st March 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) directing the seizure of the Red Sanders Wood which is prohibited. Though it is reflected in the said show cause notice that the petitioner shall have an opportunity to inspect the documents within fifteen days from the date of service and shall further give a reply within thirty days, but the notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner on 7th March 2014. By the said notice the said authority...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »