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.
Eden Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs. Eden Reality Ventures Pvt Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.2379 of 2014 APOT No.396 of 2014 CS No.80 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EDEN INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD Versus EDEN REALITY VENTURES PVT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 1st August, 2014. Appearance:Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anirban Roy and Mr.Samik Chkraborty Ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arindam Mukherjee and Mr.Deepak Jain, ld. Advocates for the respondent. The Court :- There were two suits being CS373of 2013 and 374 of 2013 between the above parties. After deliberation the parties settled their discord as we find from the Terms of Settlement. Clause 66 of the Terms of Settlement appearing at page 98 of the petition is set out which is The parties declare and confirm that apart from the said 2(two) civil suits and the criminal complaints thereunder, there are no other suit or legal proceeding by...
Contract and Construction Society Vs. Farakka Barrage Project and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET APO3052013 AP6702012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.IDEAL COOPERATIVE LABOUR CONTRACT & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY Versus FARAKKA BARRAGE PROJECT & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble MR.BANERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 1st August, 2014. Md.Taimur Hossain, Advocate Ms.Shibani Bhagat, Advocate for the appellant The Court : The parties had dispute that was referred to the arbitration as per the arbitration clause. The Arbitrator was appointed on June 19, 1989. The authority asked the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses that the appellant brought it to the notice of the Court when the same was done away with. Ultimately, the new Arbitrator was appointed by this Court by order dated May 17, 1991. The new Arbitrator never assumed office. In paragraph 12 of the application the appellant contended before the learned single Judge, they made several requests to appoint a new Arbitrator. Howev...
L and T Finance Ltd Vs. Mandeep Gupta and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.2319 of 2014 APOT No.382 of 2014 AP No.212 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LTD Versus MANDEEP GUPTA AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 1st August, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Partha Banerjee, ld. Advocate For the appellant. The Court :- Despite service none appears to oppose this appeal. The learned Single Judge discharged the Receiver as the appellant could not assist the Receiver informing him about the aggrieved, Learned affidavit location the Counsel of the appellant preferred appearing wherefrom we hypothecated find for the the the assets. instant appellant present Being appeal. files location of an the assets as stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit. In such view of the matter the appeal succeeds in part and the order of discharge of Receiver is set aside. The monthly instalments have become due and payable to the extent of ...
Steel and Metals Vs. Dhirendra Nath Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET EC No.285 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE STEEL & METALS Versus DHIRENDRA NATH PAUL & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 1st August, 2014. Mr.S.Sen, Mr.S.N.Pandeyappear. Mr.R.N.Basak, Mr.D.K.Guptaappear. The Court : On 2nd July, 2014 Mr.R.N.Basak submitted, holding out that he was appearing for the judgment debtor no.1 also, that the judgment debtor no.1 was paralytic and could not move out from the house to affirm an affidavit. In those circumstances, I directed the next friend of the judgment debtor to affirm and file an affidavit in this Court by 16th July, 2014. No affidavit is on record. Now, Mr.Basak submits that he was not authorised to appear for the judgment debtor no.1 and made the submissions as instructed by judgment debtor nos.2 to 5. In those circumstances, I pass the following direction : [a].The Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, through the local Police Station will make an inquiry and f...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Arvind Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TA No.133 of 2014 CS No.280 of 2014 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.Versus ARVIND LAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 1st August, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate Ms.Mausumi Bhattacharya, Advocate The Court: This is an interim application in aid of a suit complaining of infringement of the plaintiffs trade mark and copy right. An affidavit of service is on record. It shows that the Advocate on record for the plaintiff has made every attempt to serve a copy of the petition upon the defendant. But it is not absolutely clear whether the defendant has received the papers in advance to come to this court and defend this action. However, Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits this court in an appropriate case, to pass an ex-parte interim order. Some observations were made by a Division Bench of this Court recently in the case of Lipu Sewing Machine that in extra or...
Union of India Vs. M/S.Arbind Enterprises
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET APO1592014 AP9722013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S.ARBIND ENTERPRISES BEFORE: The Hon'ble MR.BANERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 1st August, 2014. Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Advocate for the appellant Mr.B.S.Sinha Roy, Senior Advocate Mr.Debabrata Chakraborti, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : This appeal would relate to an order of refusal to entertain an application made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts would depict, the Tribunal published its award on April 22, 2013. The appellant received it on April 24, 2013 and the appellant filed an application on August 27, 2013. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would give three months time to challenge the award coupled with a grace period of thirty days provided, the applicant would show sufficient cause. Beyond the period of thr...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Moti Lal Prasad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TA No.132 of 2014 CS No.281 of 2014 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.Versus MOTI LAL PRASAD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 1st August, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate Ms.Mausumi Bhattacharya, Advocate The Court: This is an interim application in aid of a suit complaining of infringement of the plaintiffs trade mark and copy right. An affidavit of service is on record. It shows that the Advocate on record for the plaintiff has made every attempt to serve a copy of the petition upon the defendant. But it is not absolutely clear whether the defendant has received the papers in advance to come to this court and defend this action. However, Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits this court in an appropriate case, to pass an ex-parte interim order. Some observations were made by a Division Bench of this Court recently in the case of Lipu Sewing Machine that in ext...
M/S. Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Henry MekIn India Pvt. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET GA2519of 2013 With CS51of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.Versus HENRY MEKIN INDIA PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 1st August, 2014. Mr.G.Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.Ms.Maya Bhadra, Adv..for the petitioner. Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Meghnad Dutta, Adv..for the defendant no.1 to 5. The Court: This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant nos.1 to 5 claim that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit is barred by law. The defendants rely on the Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. I have considered the contention raised by the defendants. The suit is for injunction. The plaintiff claims mandatory injunction directing to defendants to close and / or cover up the holes made in the eastern boundary wall and have a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering i...
Mr. Sagnik Basu, Ad Vs. …for the Petitioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CP112OF2014RE: M/S BEEKAY STRUCTURAL & ENGINEERS PVT LTD -ANDSr.STEELS PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 1st August, 2014. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Mr.Sagnik Basu, Adversus for the petitioner Mr.Kuldip Mallick, Ms.Uma Bagree, Ms.Aindrila Basu, Adversus for the company The Court :- In this winding up petition the claim arises on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The case of the petitioning creditor is that for supplies made by it to the company sums became due and payable. Bills were raised and there is no dispute with regard to receipt of such bills. As non-payment continued statutory notice was issued on 31st May, 2014. In spite of receipt no reply has been given to the statutory notice. In the opposition filed by the company the company has sought to raise a dispute by taking the plea of payment made through one Vrinda Engineers PVT.LTD.as on an earlier occasion also ...
Seba Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.683 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SEBA ROY 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 2007 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 4 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 require co...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »