Kolkata Court September 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.
Daulal Sarda and Sons Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.801 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DAULAL SARDA & SONS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.P.Saha, Mr.P.Divedi, Mr.A.Mandalfor petitioner. Mr.K.Deyfor respondent nos.2 & 3. The Court : This writ application, can be disposed of at the threshold. No affidavits are necessary. The allegations made in the petition are deemed not to be admitted. The Customs Authorities seized about 50 containers loaded onto railway wagons. According to them they contained betel nuts of foreign origin. The writ petitioner is the owner of a part of the goods. The seizure was made under section 110. Section 110A provides as follows : 110A. Provisional, release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the [adjudicating authority]., be released to the owner on taking a bond fr...
Vikash Bagaria and anr. Vs. Farooque Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET APOT5062014 GA28852014 CS3832012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VIKASH BAGARIA & ANR. Versus FAROOQUE AHMED & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.Krishna Raj Thakkar, Advocate Mr.Ganesh Narayan Jajodia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Ankit Shroff, Advocate Mr.Subhajit Karmakar, Advocate for the respondent. Mr.Ashis Mukherjee, Advocate for the respondent no.4. The Court : Though the appellants ought to have filed two appeals challenging the orders dated 7.8.2014 and 18.8.2014, only one appeal is preferred. The appellants might have chosen to do so as the order dated 18.8.2014 is a clarificatory order of order dated 7.8.2014. However, the clarification seems to be a confusion. Several interim reliefs came to be claimed that is prayers (a).(b)....
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Sadika Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET AP No.1138 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus SADIKA INFRABUILD PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Date : 15th September, 2014. Appearance : Mr.P.Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner The Court : The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. The respondents are not represented despite actual service in respect of respondent Nos.2 & 3 and deemed service in respect of respondent no.1. In view of the averments made in paragraph 58 of the instant application, clause 12 of the Letters Patent. leave The is granted petitioner under claims that a total sum of Rs.54,62,714.00 is due and payable including an amount in excess of Rs.7.80 lacs on account of defaulted instalments calculated upto 1st July, 2014. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that out of three assets covered under the agreement, one has been taken possession by the peti...
Lakshmi Niwas Bangur and ors. Vs. Trikundi Realcom Llp
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
GA No.2639 of 2014 CSOS No.8 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Originating Summons LAKSHMI NIWAS BANGUR & ORS.Versus TRIKUNDI REALCo.LLP BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Debajyoti Dutta, Advocate Mr.A.R.Khan, Advocate Mr.S.K.Ash, Advocate for the plaintiffs Mr.Joy Saha, Advocate for the defendant The Court: By an Originating Summons suit (CSOS No.5 of 2010) the trustees moved this Court for sale of, inter alia, the Deoghar property owned by the trust. By an order dated 14th May, 2010, Patherya, J., sanctioned sale of the property in favour of Satsang for a price of Rs.9 crores. Although about three years elapsed, Satsang showed no inclination to conclude the sale. In those circumstances, the trustees adopted a resolution on 5th April, 2014 to sell the property to Trikundi RealCo.LLP at or for a price of Rs.12.61 crores, subject to sanction by this court. The intending p...
Mpr Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward8[1], Calcutta and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.825 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MPR MARKETING PVT.LTD.Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8[1]., CALCUTTA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.A.Chowdhury, senior advocate, Mr.D.Mantosh, Ms.S.R.Dasfor petitioner. The Court : An affidavit of service is on record. None appears for the Income Tax Department. The notice under challenge is dated 21st November, 2013. It is issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking powers under section 147. According to this notice, the income with regard to which the writ petitioner was chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-2009 had escaped assessment. Mr.Chowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner showed me a letter of the writ petitioner dated 27th November, 2013. It appears that there was scrutiny assessment of the writ petitioners return under section 143[3].of the Income Tax Act for the same...
Adras Traders Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.798 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ADRAS TRADERS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.P.Saha, Mr.P.Divedi, Mr.A.Mandalfor petitioner. Mr.K.Deyfor respondent nos.2 & 3. The Court : This writ application, can be disposed of at the threshold. No affidavits are necessary. The allegations made in the petition are deemed not to be admitted. The Customs Authorities seized about 50 containers loaded onto railway wagons. According to them they contained betel nuts of foreign origin. The writ petitioner is the owner of a part of the goods. The seizure was made under section 110. Section 110A provides as follows : 110A. Provisional, release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the [adjudicating authority]., be released to the owner on taking a bond from him...
Lgw Ltd.Petitioner Vs. Union of India and ors.Respondents
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.1286 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LGW LTD.Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Pradip Kr. Ghose, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Aryak Dutt, Mr.Saurabh Mitra, Ms.Kriti Karnani & Mr.Gaurav Purkaystha, Adversus For Respondents :Ms.Mamta Bharghav, Adv.A substantial case has been made out by the writ petitioner. It appears from a reading of the Government of India notification dated 7th July, 2011, issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade which is Annexure P-3 at page 32 of the writ petition that an export item was added to those covered by Public Notice No.180 dated 14th May, 2009. The item added was raw cotton [not carded or combed].The notification specified that against an export of 1 kg. of raw cotton, 0.01116 kg. of pesticides was the quantity allowed. Hence, pesticide was also added to the items of import in Public Not...
Ranjana Dutta Vs. the Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO242OF2014WITH WP91of 1973 IN THE MATTER OF: NATOBAR DUTTA PROPERTIES P LTD (IN LIQN.) -AndRANJANA DUTTA Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.Mainak Bose, Advocate Mr.Pavel Das, Advocate Mr.Ankur Jain, Advocate Mr.S.Basu, Advocate for Appellant Mr.S.Ganguly, Advocate Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate Mr.Pallab Kumar Mitra, Advocate ..for respondent 4 Kishorilal Agarwalla Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.O.P.Jhunjhunwala, Advocate for respondent 2. Ms.Smita Das De, Advocate for Official Liquidator The Court :-In pursuance of our earlier order dated 1st September, 2014 the appellant has not been able to bring any prospective purchaser for the property in question offering more than Rs.4.5 crore and also the sale along with the encumbrance i.e.occupants pre and post liquidation in the said building. Th...
C.i.T. Kolkata Ii Vs. Duars Union Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET ITA No.378 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T.KOLKATA II Versus DUARS UNION TEA Co.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 15th September, 2014. Appearance: Mr.M.P. Agarwal, Adv.Mr.Debasish, Mitra, Adv.The Court : This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order dated 21st April, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata, in I.T(SS).No.43(Kol) of 2002 relating to block assessment years 1987-88 to 1996-97 and broken period from 1.4.1996 to 22.1.1997 on the following questions: i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that the unaccounted for expenditure incurred and income earned by the assessee, discovered in couRs.of a search in case of a director of the company, formed part of the order passed by the Settleme...
M/S. Ganpati Enterprises Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2014
ORDER SHEET WP NO.802 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.GANPATI ENTERPRISES Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 15th September, 2014. Mr.P.Saha, Mr.P.Divedi, Mr.A.Mandalfor petitioner. Mr.K.Deyfor respondent nos.2 & 3. The Court : This writ application, can be disposed of at the threshold. No affidavits are necessary. The allegations made in the petition are deemed not to be admitted. The Customs Authorities seized about 50 containers loaded onto railway wagons. According to them they contained betel nuts of foreign origin. The writ petitioner is the owner of a part of the goods. The seizure was made under section 110. Section 110A provides as follows : 110A. Provisional, release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication. Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the [adjudicating authority]., be released to the owner on taking a bon...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »