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.
Manju Sinha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.685 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANJ.SINHA 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 1995 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 16 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...
Rasbihari Mahata Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.717 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RASBIHARI MAHATA 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 1986 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 25 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...
Amrita Sinha Vs. Legal Remembrancer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.711 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMRITA SINHA Versus LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Ms.Manasi Roy , Advocate ..for the petitioner Mr.Saikat Chatterjee, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1998 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 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 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. T...
Anjana Sen Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.678 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ANJANA SEN GUPTA 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.Tapati Samanta, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1986 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 25 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...
Bikasranjan Patranabis Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
ORDER SHEET WP No.688 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BIKASRANJAN PATRANABIS Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date: 1st August, 2014 Mr.Bikasranjan Patranabis , Petitioner in-person Mr.Sabyasachi Roychowdhury, Advocate ..for the respondents The petitioner was a panel advocate of the State of West Bengal since 1990 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 21 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 pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›