Kolkata Court August 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.
M/S. V.K. Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.385 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.V.K.UDYOG LTD.Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 13th August, 2014. Mr.A.K.Chowdhuryfor petitioner. Mr.S.B.Saraf, Md.T.M.Siddiquifor the CustoMs.Mr.K.Deyfor respondent no.2. The Court : Mainly two points are raised by Mr.Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner. The fiRs.is that the Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence did not have the power to issue the subject show cause notice. The second point is that in the facts and circumstances it was not a case where duty had not been levied or had been short levied or erroneously refunded etc.under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. So, according to Mr.Chowdhury the heading of the show cause notice section 28 read with section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is bad in law and that the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction. To this, Mr.Saraf took me to the body of th...
Sunil Kumar Goel Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.749 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUNIL KUMAR GOEL Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.S.K.Mehtafor petitioner. Mr.S.B.Saraf, Md.T.M.Siddiquifor Respondents. The Court : This writ application can be disposed of at the court application stage because of the valuable assistance received from learned counsel on either side. In a proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 relating to confiscation, penalty etc.one Mr.Sunil Kumar Goel was also issued a show cause notice. Mr.Goel was a director of the company against which the principal allegations were made. However, he was able to demonstrate before the Commissioner of Customs [Airport & Administration].before whom the adjudication took place, that he had no role to play in the matters complained of as he had relinquished directorship earlier. This was accepted by the Commissioner. By his order...
Chowdhury Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.224 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CHOWDHURY UDYOG Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Roy, Mr.K.K.Maiti, Adversus for respondent nos.1 & 3 The Court : This writ challenges a show cause cum demand notice dated 25th June, 2013 issued by the Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit to the writ petitioner. It was issued under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner challenges this show cause notice at the very threshold. He submits that this show cause notice can neither be issued under Section 28 nor under 124 of the said Act. The imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty. Thereupon they were released. According to Mr.Mehta, final assessment was not carried out. Without carryin...
Compubell Infotech Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP730OF2014COMPUBELL INFOTECH LTD.Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.Chayan Kumar Gupta, Advocate for petitioner The Court :-The grievance of the writ petitioner is that a fixed deposit opened with the respondent No.1 is not being returned to the petitioner in spite of request. For the purpose of entering into contracts with Customs Authorities the writ petitioner was required to furnish two bank guarantees. To secure such bank guarantees the writ petitioner created two fixed deposits with the respondent No.1. The two bank guarantees were of May 1998. The validity period of the two bank guarantees have expired. The bank guarantees were not invoked by the beneficiaries. The writ petitioner approached the bank for encashment of the fixed deposits subsequent to the bank guarantees becoming stale. By a letter dated March 8, 2011 the responden...
Uttam Kumar Gupta Vs. C.E.S.C. Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.348 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UTTAM KUMAR GUPTA Versus C.E.S.C.LIMITED & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 12th August, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.Mr.Indranath Mitra, Adv.Mr.Arindam Deb Roy, Adv. for the petitioner Mr.Debasish Kundu, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.N. Barik, Adv.Mr.Anirban Ray, Adv.Mr.S.Ghosal, Adv. for the respondent No.10 Mr.Alok Ghosh, Adv.Ms.Era Ghosh, Adv. for the KMC. Mr.Prasum Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Deepak Agarwal, Adv. for the CESC The Court : The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the private respondent has caused disconnection of electricity to a shop room and are preventing the licensee from reconnecting electric supply. The writ petitioner claims to run a fair price ration shop where he enjoys electric supply. In support of enjoyment of his electric supply bills raised by the licensee are annexed. In support of his occupation of the fair price ration shop he re...
Lafarge India Private Limited Vs. Green Concretex Global Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET CS58of 2013 GA1078of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LAFARGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus GREEN CONCRETEX GLOBAL LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Mainak Bose, Mr.S.Banerjee, Mr.P.N.Srivastava, Mr.C.Gupta, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.The Court: The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant claiming a money decree for Rs.62,19,780/-. Admittedly, the defendant carries on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiffs registered office is also outside the jurisdiction of this Court. However, it has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has an Eastern Operations Office at 22, Camac Street, Kolkata16 within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has instituted the suit after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the basis that the purchase order was received by the plaintiff fro...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkataii, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mkj Enterprise ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.1927 of 2014 ITAT No.74 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA Versus M/S.MKJ ENTERPRISES LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 12th August, 2014. Appearance: Ms.Smita Das De, Adv.The Court: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27th January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A.No.729/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. Two following questions have been raised for admission by the Revenue being: I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was Justified in law to uphold the order of the CIT(A) holding, inter alia, that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards not for earlier period by relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of DCIT -vs.- Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Lim...
Magma Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.226 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA DEALERS PVT.LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Roy, Mr.K.K.Maiti, Adversus for respondent nos.1 & 3 The Court : This writ challenges a show cause cum demand notice dated 10th July, 2013 issued by the Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit to the writ petitioner. It was issued under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner challenges this show cause notice at the very threshold. He submits that this show cause notice can neither be issued under Section 28 nor under 124 of the said Act. The imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty. Thereupon they were released. According to Mr.Mehta, final assessment was not carried out. Without c...
Deep Jyoti Wax Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.229 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DEEP JYOTI WAX TRADERS PVT.LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 12th August, 2014. Mr.Sudhir Kumar Mehta, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Roy, Mr.K.K.Maiti, Adversus for respondent nos.1 & 3 The Court : This writ challenges a show cause cum demand notice dated 31st May, 2013 issued by the Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit to the writ petitioner. It was issued under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner challenges this show cause notice at the very threshold. He submits that this show cause notice can neither be issued under Section 28 nor under 124 of the said Act. The imported goods were provisionally assessed to duty. Thereupon they were released. According to Mr.Mehta, final assessment was not carried out. W...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
ORDER SHEET CP342of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE : JIBANDEEP GOLD LTD -ANDSUDHIN PAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 12th August, 2014. Ms.Ranjabati Sen, Adv...for the petitioning creditORS.The Court: This is an application under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. As a preliminary point the Court had raised a query as to whether more than one creditor can maintain a winding up petition jointly. Ms.Ranjabati Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditors drew this Courts attention to the language of Section 439 of the Companies Act which makes it abundantly clear that more than one creditor can jointly maintain a winding up petition. She also placed reliance on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A.V.Krishna versus Karnataka Leasing & Commercial Corporation LTD.reported in I.L.R.1993 KAR338which also supports such contention. Hence, this court is satisfied th...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »