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.
Banani Mukherjee Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.714 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BANANI MUKHERJEE 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.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1984 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 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 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 a...
Prasenjit Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.698 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRASENJIT BASU 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 2007 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 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 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 ...
Jagabandhu Roy Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.718 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE JAGABANDHU ROY 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.Sabyasachi Roychoudhury, 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 admis...
Aniruddha Bagchi Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.712 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANIRUDDHA BAGCHI 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.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1989 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 22 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 adm...
Ashim Kumar Chatterjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.660 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASHIM KUMAR CHATTERJEE Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Mr.Dipak Das , 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 1998 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 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 are found to be admissible. That wo...
Pratima Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.721 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRATIMA SAHA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Mr.Pathik Bandhu Banerjee , Advocate with Ms.Bratalina Dhar chowdhury, Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Subir Pal, 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 foun...
Madhuri Das Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.713 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MADHURI 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 1991 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 20 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. ...
Sri Krishna Nanda Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.684 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.KRISHNA NANDA MUKHERJEE 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 1996 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 15 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 neces...
Alok Roychowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.697 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ALOK ROYCHOWDHURY 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 1989 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 22 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 requ...
Dipanwita Ghosh (Chaudhuri) Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.686 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DIPANWITA GHOSH (CHAUDHURI) Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Rina Banerjee , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Subir Pal, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1991 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 20 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 neces...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »