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.
Hare Krishna Haldar Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.715 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HARE KRISHNA HALDAR Versus LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Amrita Sinha , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Saikat Chatterjee, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2005 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 6 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 are found to be admissi...
Chandra Sekhar Das Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.716 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CHANDRA SEKHAR DAS Versus LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Amrita Sinha , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Saikat Chatterjee, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1984 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 27 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 are found to be admissi...
Nilofer Siddique Alam Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.670 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NILOFER SIDDIQUE ALAM Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Mr.Mrinal Ranjan Paramanick , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Sabhyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1999 till May, 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her 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 12 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 she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be adm...
Silpi Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.692 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SILPI SENGUPTA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Rina Banerjee , Advocate ..for the petitioner Ms.Rita Patra, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 till May, 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her 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 8 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 she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily requir...
Shireen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.693 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHIREEN SULTANA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Rina Banerjee , Advocate ..for the petitioner Ms.Rita Patra, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 till May, 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her 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 8 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 she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissible. That would necessarily requi...
Kalyan Maitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.691 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KALYAN MAITRA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Rina Banerjee , Advocate ..for the petitioner Ms.Aparna Ghosh, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 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 8 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 are found to be admissible. That would necessarily require...
Kabita Mukherjee Vs. Legal Remembrancer, Govt. of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.709 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KABITA MUKHERJEE Versus LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Amrita Sinha , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 2003 till May, 2011. She is aggrieved because the bills raised by her 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 8 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 she is not entitled to the fees charged by her and to release such quantum of payment to the petitioner, as are found to be admissi...
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. M/S. Howrah Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
AP No.1086 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.Versus M/S.HOWRAH MILLS Co.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 1st August, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv.Mr.D.Ghosh, Adv.The Court : Leave is given to the petitioner to correct the mistakes in the cause title and in paragraph 27. The correction will be effected in presence of an officer of Court and a copy of the corrected petition should be forwarded to the respondent. The petitioner is the State Trading Corporation of India and it claims that a substantial sum of money is due to it from the respondent. The petitioner refers to an admission by the respondent of its indebtedness contained in a letter of February 11, 2014. It is evident that the respondent admitted that a sum of Rs.6,48,64,163/- was due to the petitioner excluding the margin money. Cheques of a total value of Rs.7.20 crore issued by the respondent to the petitioner hav...
Ratan Lal JaIn and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
C.S.183 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Ratan Lal Jain & Anr. versus Union of India BEFORE: The Honble Justice SOUMEN SEN Date: 1st August, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.Ms.Amrita Pandey, Adv.Mr.Palash Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.N.Chowdhury, Adv.THE COURT: The plaintiff has instituted the suit for specific return of 33320 kgs. betel nuts seized by the Customs Authorities and in the alternative a decree for a sum of Rs.1,78,44,258/- as pleaded in Paragraph 17 of the Plaint. The plaintiff in the further alternative has prayed for an enquiry into the damages and a decree for such sum as may be found due upon such enquiry. In spite of service of the writ of summons and service of notices upon the defendants, the defendants have failed to enter appearance and filed their written statement. In the circumstances, although the plaintiff is not required to lead any evidence in view of the doctrine of non-traveRs.and the fact that th...
Sk. Oli Mahammad Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.664 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SK. OLI MAHAMMAD Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Sk. Oli Mahammad, Petitioner in person Mr.Sabhyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1998 till May, 2011. He is aggrieved because the bills raised by him for professional services rendered have not been cleared. I have heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned advocate for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been an empanelled advocate for nearly 13 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 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »