Court : Kolkata
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Mr.Justice Shivakant Prasad A.P.O.No.62 of 2015 A.P.No.1994 of 2014 & APO No.63 of 2015 A.P.No.16 Of 2015 Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited versus Naresh Dhanraj Jain For the Appellant : Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Ms.Manju Bhutoria, Advocate Ms.Nikita Jhunjhunwala, advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Senior Advocate Mr.Soumabha Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Agarwalla, Advocate Ms.Neha Chauhan, Advocate Heard on Judgment on : April 22, 2015. : April 30, 2015. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. FACTS: Parties entered into a contract under which the respondent was to supply coal to the appellant for its power plant. Under the agreement, the price of coal would vary as per the specifications, the variance would principally relate to moisture content. The dispute arose when the appellant decline...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
CC93of 2013 GA No.1260 of 2014 WP No.243 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Standard Pharmaceuticals LTD.versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.For the plaintiff/ petitioner:- Mr.Debal Banerjee (Sr.Adv.) Mr.Abhrajit Mitra (Sr.Advocate) Mr.S.Bose Mr.S.Dutta Mr.S.Majumdar Mr.S.Chatterjee Mr.S.Ghosh Mr.A.Sinha Mrs.T.Lahiri For K.M.C :- Mr.Alok Kr. Ghosh Mr.Saurav Chaudhury For State:- Mr.Pranab Dutta (Sr.Adv.) Ms.C.Bhattacharya Ms.T.Samanta For Respondent: Mr.Arunabha Ghosh(Sr.Adv.) Mr.D.Sengupta Mr.R.K.Dubey Judgement On: I.P.MUKERJI, J. 29th, April, 2015 The petitioner was the owner of premises No.67, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata-700 014. They wanted to develop this property. On 17th May, 2005 they got a building plan sanctioned by Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The sanction was for building four, four storied structures. The petitioner claims to have obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department of the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
AID1OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.DEVANS MODERN BREWERIES LTD.Versus CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Date : 29th April, 2015. Appearance: Ms.Moushumi Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Prithviraj Sinha, Adv.Ms.Mitul Das Gupta, Adv.Ms.S.Chatterjee Singh, Adv.Ms.Debamitra Adhikari, Adv..for the appellants Mr.Somenath Bose, Adv.for U.O.I The Court : The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 7th November, 2012, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, in connection with an application bearing No.233798, which was filed by the appellant under section 5(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. By the impugned order, the Assistant Controller refused registration of a design under the application filed by the appellant before it. It appears from the facts of the instant case that challenging an earlier order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, being order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen G.A.3532 of 2014 E.C.No.559 of 2013 C.S.71 of 1999 SHINEUP FIBRES LTD.versus PREMIER THREADS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.For the Plaintiff/Decree-holder : Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Mr.Suddhasatva Banerjee For the Defendant /Judgment-debtor : Mr.Anuj Singh, Mr.Saunak Sengupta, Mr.A.Samanta, Heard on :20.11.2014,08.01.2015, 15.01.2015,29.01.2015, 03.03.2015,10.03.2015, 07.04.2015,09.04.2015, 23.04.2015, 28.04.2015 Judgment on : 29th April, 2015 Soumen Sen, J.:- The petitioner has filed an application for execution of a decree dated December 4, 2001 as amended on December 13, 2001. In the said proceeding this application has been filed for dismissal of the execution application, inter alia, on the grounds:i) The decree is incapable of being executed by this Honble Court as none of the properties of the judgment debtor are within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and, hence, un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA No.1328 of 2015 With CS No.190 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ANJANI ENTERPRISE Versus VISHNU KANT GUPTA & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th April, 2015. Appearance: Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.D.N.Sharma, Adv.Mr.Sailendra Jain, Adv.for the petitioner. Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv.for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Subhankar Nag, Mr.K.L.Yadav, Ms.Amrin Khatoon, for the respondent The Court : The plaintiff has filed a suit Adv.Adv.Adv.no.3 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 8th February, 2007. In the suit a specific prayer is made for delivery of 5230 MT of scraps as the balance quantity required to be delivered under the agreement dated 8th February, 2007. The case of the plaintiff appears to be that under the agreement the defendant no.1 agreed to sell scrap estimated to be 7000 MT to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.9.00 per kg. Under the said agreement the plaintiff in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.365 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CHATTER SINGH BAID Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : April 28, 2015. Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Arindam Chandra, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.Barin Banerjee, MRS.Sima Chakraborty, Adversus for K.M.C.The Court : The writ petitioner seeks revalidation of a sanctioned building plan dated March 23, 1985 in respect of premises No.2, Church Lane, Kolkata-700 001. Mr.Samit Talukdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that a building plan was sanctioned in respect of the concerned premises on March 23, 1985. The writ petitioner had suffered a notice under Section 401 on October 26, 1986. The writ petitioner had approached this Honble Court against such notice. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated November 13, 1986. The writ petitioner had applied for revalid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET WP No.1005 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SANDEEP SEHGAL Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 28th April, 2015. Appearance : For K.M.C.: Mr.Barin Banerjee,Advocate Mr.Dilip Kr. Chatterjee,Advocate The Court : - The challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated August 23,2013 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal in Appeal No.71 of 2009. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the directions contained in the judgment and order of the Appeal Court dated May 8, 2009 has not been complied with by the Special Officer (Building).The writ petitioner was not allowed to produce relevant evidence before the Special Officer (Building).It is also contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that, the Building Tribunal had proceeded on the surmise that the writ petitioner had constructed windows on a load bearing wall. The Building Tribunal ought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET WP45of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE JOLLY MONDAL Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 28th January, 2015. Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.Mrs.M.Kanji, Adv.Mr.S.Sanyal,Adv.Mr.R.Karmakar, Adv.Mr.Rohit Das, Adv.Mr.Ranjan Kumar Koli, Adv.The Court: Some of the reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition are as follows: (a) A writ and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus be issued authorities specifically to forthwith enjoining take the steps to respondent get the litigations being S.A.No.37 of 2010 disposed of at the earliest within a specified time and deliver and/or make over vacant situated and on khas possession premises No.25E, of the Nandan said property Road, P.S Bhowanipore, Kolkata 700 025 free from all encumbrances whatsoever and hand over the original title deeds thereof; (b) A writ and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
G.A.No.905 of 2015 G.A.No.904 of 2015 ITAT46OF2015IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE CIT, BURDWAN Versus MIHIR KANTI HAZRA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 28th April, 2015. Appearance : Mr.S.Mookherjee,Advocate Mr.Avratosh Mazumder,ld.Govt.Pleader & Advocate Mr.Avra Mazumder, Advocate The Court: The application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the appeal, after hearing the parties, is allowed. The application being G.A.No.904 of 2015 is thus disposed of. The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgement and order dated 10th September, 2014 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07 by which the learned Tribunal reversed an order passed by the CIT (Appeals) concurring with the views of the assessing officer in so far as the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was made. The revenue has come up in appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
APO151OF2015AP1530OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION Original Side M/S.ROCKWOOL INDUSTRIES LTD.-VSM/S.LUNIA BROS (CALCUTTA) BEFORE : The Hon'ble Justice BANERJEE The Honble Justice RAJIV SHARMA Date : 28.04.2015 Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Saunak Mitra, Advocate Mr.Dipendra Nath Chunder, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Piush Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : This appeal would relate to an application for setting aside of the award made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of limitation. The parties had a commercial transaction. The respondent would claim, their bills would remain outstanding that the appellant failed to pay within the time stipulated. Since the respondent was a small-scale industry, they would be entitled to the benefit of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 that would give additional protection to the small entrepreneurs in the process to recover their due...
Tag this Judgment!