Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.756 of 2013 SHYAMAL SIRCAR AND OTHERS -VersusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS For the Petitioners: Mr Debayan Bera, Adv., Mr S. P. Chakrabarti, Adv. For the State: Mr Sadhan Ray Chowdhury, Adv., Mr Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Ms Sucharita Ray, Adv. For the Respondent No.4: Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr For the Official Liquidator: Ms Smita Das De, Adv. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr Adv., S. N. Mookherjee, Sr Adv., Samit Talukdar, Sr Adv., Sounak Mitra, Adv., S. K. Saxena, Adv., Anuj Singh, Adv., Pratik Majumdar, Adv., Subrata Kr. Basu, Adv., R. L. Gaggar, Adv., S. Bose, Adv. Hearing concluded: August 28, 2015. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: August 31, 2015. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: The petitioners complain of being cheated by the State in their land being confiscated for a pittance only to be ultimately made over to realtors for a high- end residential complex being developed without the land being used for any p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
W.P.No.1992 of 1995 W.P.No.1657 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Kesoram Industries LTD.versus E.S.I.Corporation & ORS.For the petitioner: Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Domingo Gomes, Advocate For the Respondent:- Mr.S.Moitra MRS.Keya Bhattacharyya , Advocates Judgement On: - 31st August, 2015 I.P.MUKERJI, J. Most intriguing questions arise in these two writ applications which were heard together. They concern the employees or workmen of Kesoram Industries Limited, at the relevant point of time. By his letter dated 5th September, 1995 the Deputy Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation told the writ petitioner that the milk allowance of Rs.2.25 per day that they were paying to each of their workmen was not to be counted as part of their wage. He also said that the wages that were being paid for work done by the workmen on holidays were to be treated as overtime and not included as a component of wage paid to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA839of 2015 CS61of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED Versus SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 31st August, 2015. Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Manoj Kr.Tiwari, Adv.Mr.P.Sinha, Adv..for the petitioner. Mr.Pradip Kr. Dutta, Adv.Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.Mr.Partha Basu, Adv.Mr.N.K.Roy, Adv..for the respondent no.1. The Court: The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking, inter alia, for injunction restraining the bank from honouring a letter of invocation dated 6th March, 2015. In the suit the plaintiff has filed an application for injunction seeking the same and/or similar reliefs. The plaintiff says that the letter of invocation relates to the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) No.13 which is presumably non-existent. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on the premise that the plaintiff has never entered into any Fuel Supply Agreement with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Soumen Sen G.A.2150 of 2015 EOS No.41 of 1999 SHRI SHRIKANT MANTRI VS. SAVITRI DEVI MANTRI & ORS. For the plaintiff/petitioner : Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Samrat Sen. For the defendant/respondent : Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Mr. R. Mitra, Mr. S. Mitra. Heard on :09. 07.2015, 12.08.2015, 17.08.2015, 19.08.2015, 24.08.2015. Judgment on :28. h August, 2015 Soumen Sen, J.:- This is an application for re-examination of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, the third witness on behalf of the plaintiff in a testamentary proceeding for the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament dated November 12, 1990 executed by Late Kamla Devi Mantri. During the course of his examination the applicant stated that he had accompanied his father Late Kamal Kumar Jain to the residence of the said deceased on 12th November, 1990 and was personally presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side WP No.1035 of 2014 GA345of 2015 Kashinath Chakraborty -Vs.- Central Bank of India & ORS.Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the Petitioner : Mr.Biswarup Bhattacharjee, Adv.Ms.Ashmita Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Dipayan Kundu, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.Biswambher Jha, Adv.Heard on : 06/04/2015, 08/04/2015 & 24/08/2015 Judgment On : 28/08/2015 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) This writ petition has been filed challenging the final order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 24th May, 2014 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th August, 2014. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority who held that the charges brought against the writ petitioner were proved and the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the writ petitioner. (2) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk by the Respondent Bank in April, 1971. He was granted several promotions over the y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (ORIGINAL SIDE) G.A.2518/2015 A.P.O.T.337/2015 A.P.174/2015 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of Indian LTD.VS M/s R. Piyarelall Import & Export LTD.BEFORE: The Honble Justice INDIRA BANERJEE And The Honble Justice SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI For the Petitioner : Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Tapas Kumar Majumdar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Senior Advocate. Heard on Judgment on : 06.08.2015, 10.08.2015, 11.08.2015, 12.08.2015, 14.08.2015, 24.08.2015 : 28.08.2015 INDIRA BANERJEE, J.: This appeal is against a judgement and order dated 29th June, 2015 passed by the learned Single Bench rejecting the application filed by the appellant, being AP No.174 of 2015, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act, for setting aside an award, made by an arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators of the Indian Council of Arbitration, on 21...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
OD-58 AP No.1527 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MITRA REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD.-VersusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Bijon Majumdar, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Samrat Sen, Sr.Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : August 26, 2015. The Court : The defence taken by the State to this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. It contract is the exceeded admitted Rs.1 position crore. It is that also the value of the admitted by the petitioner now that the standard terms appended to the petition are not the standard terms governing the contract. However, the petitioner claims that since the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions appended to the affidavit-in-opposition indicate that the appointing authority would be the chief engineer and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
GA No.1941 of 2015 APOT No.244 of 2015 CS No.323 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SURINDER KUMAR SINGH Versus PARIJAT VYAPAR PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date: 24th August, 2015 Appearance Mr.Suman Dutta, Adv.with Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.Mr.Devajyoti Baidya, Adv.Mr.Surajit Sen, Adv.Ms.N.Dutta, Adv.Mr.Malay Ghosh, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Anuj Singh, Adv.Mr.Soumik Chowdhury, Adv.The Court: This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application for recalling of the ex parte decree passed in the suit. The claim of the appellant is to the fact that initially service was sought to be effected upon him by the Deputy Sheriff through registered post, which had returned with the endorsement Incomplete address in 2005. Thereafter, no steps were taken to effect service and in 2008, an application was made before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side GA1107of 2014 CS119of 2014 Wrinkle Marketing PVT.LTD.-Vs.Roselabs Polymers LTD.Before For the Petitioner : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee : Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.K. Jain, Adv.For the Respondent : None Heard On : 06/08/2014 & 14/08/2015 CAV On : 14/08/2015 Judgment On : 20/08/2015 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) This is an application for judgment on admission of a sum of Rs.31,00,000/-. There are other prayers in the application including the prayers for furnishing security by the defendant, injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with its assets and properties and appointment of receiver for taking possession of the assets and properties of the defendant. On 14th May, 2014 this court had passed an order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the notice of motion which by an order dated 9th June, 2014 was continued until the disposal of the application. The petitioner at the time of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In the High Court At Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side GA1111of 2014 CS121of 2014 Somnath Merchandise Private Limited -vs.Roselabs Bioscience Limited Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.K. Jain, Adv.For the respondent : None Heard On : 06/08/2014 & 14/08/2015 CAV On : 14/08/2015 Judgment On : 20/08/2015 Arijit Banerjee, J.: (1) This is an application for judgment on admission of a sum of Rs.2,83,50,000/-. including There are other prayers in the application prayers for furnishing of security by the defendant, injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with its assets and properties and appointment of receiver for taking possession of the assets and properties of the defendant. It appears that on 16th May, 2014 this court had passed an order in terms of prayer (c) of the petition restraining the defendant and its men, servant, agents, assigns and representatives from transferring, encumbering, ...
Tag this Judgment!