Kolkata Court November 2016 Judgments
Pawan Properties Vs. Mr. Bishwanath Agarwal Alias Dhanania and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
ORDER SHEET GA No.3261 of 2016 CS No.619 of 1985 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PAWAN PROPERTIES VERSUS Mr.BISHWANATH AGARWAL Alias DHANANIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 29th November, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Ms.Sananda Ganguli, Adv.For the plaintiff. Mr.Moloy Ghosh, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sudip Deb, Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv.Mr.Debayan Ghosh, Adv.For the defendadnts. The Court :- The defendants in a suit for specific performance holding 2.27% share in the property concerned challenges a document marked Exhibit `V in the evidence. Learned Senior Advocate for the defendants submits that, the document was introduced after a prayer for re-examination of the plaintiffs witness was allowed by the Court. He refers to the pleadings of the application at paragraph 6 and submits that such paragraph details the instances, which gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Construction Company Limited Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Develo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
ORDER SHEET AP No.957 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED Versus KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th November, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Samrat Sen, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Arijit Bhowmick, Adv.for the petitioner. Mr.Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay, Adv.The Court : This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator. There is no dispute either as to the existence of the arbitration or that the disputes arisen out of the said arbitration agreement are decided and required to be resolved. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised certain disputes and a notice dated 23rd August, 2016 for appointment of an Arbitrator has duly been received by the respondent. The respondent, however, did not reply to the said notice nor has concurred to the said appointment and as a result whereof, this application is filed for appointment of an Arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta Santuka Vs. Maheshwary Ispat Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2016
O70GA1993of 2014 CS143of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SANGEETA SANTUKA Versus MAHESHWARY ISPAT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 29th November, 2016. Mr.K.R.Thakker,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Kuldeep Mallick,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Sanjay Jhunjhunwala,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Swatarup Banerjee,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Sourav Sengupta,Advocate appeaRs.The Court : - The plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for a much lesser sum than claimed, not because the plaintiff may not be ultimately found to be entitled thereto, but because of crass negligence in how the case has been made out, the over-confidence in not appending copy documents to the affidavit for final judgment, and, for want of a better expression, the unprofessional manner in which the matter has been handled on behalf of the plaintiff. The claim is simple. The plaintiff claims to have transported iron ore for the defendant over a long time. The initial part of the claim for a sum in...
Tag this Judgment!Artistery House Private Limited Vs. Export Exchange and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
GA No.1066 of 2014 CS No.54 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARTISTERY HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS EXPORT EXCHANGE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : NOVEMBER28 2016. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury,Advocate Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee,Advocate Mr.Soumabho Ghose,Advocate Ms.Swati Agarwal,Advocate Ms.N.Roy,Advocate appeaRs.appeaRs.appeaRs.appeaRs.appeaRs.Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra,Sr.Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Arindam Mukherjee,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Deepak Jain,Advocate appeaRs.The Court : - A judgment dating back nearly a century is cited by the defendants where it recognised the erudite submission on behalf of the rival parties. Unfortunately, such judgment is cited in support of a defence which is completely a waste of time. It is not by mistake that the defendants have missed the woods for the trees in asserting a document of September 1, 2004 and insisting that the clauses contained therein recognise the defendants right to, if not continue in per...
Tag this Judgment!Parbati Ganguli and Ors. Vs. M/S. Bhasdeep Infrastructure Development ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
O-50 ORDER SHEET GA2329of 2016 With CS277of 2013 GA1741of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction PARBATI GANGULI AND ORS.Versus M/S.BHASDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 28th November, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Joydip Kar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.Mr.Pratip Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Tapen Sen, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Sr.Adv.Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Adv.Mr.Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv.The Court: The claim is for a larger amount in the suit and even in the petition for judgment upon admission. However, the extent of the immediate claim on admission is restricted to the four cheques last mentioned under clause 5 of an agreement of October 9, 2007 executed by the parties. The family of Gangulis and their relatives substantially owned and controlled the third defendant company. The fiRs.defendant, through its promoter, the second defendant, wanted to develop the land of the third defendant and entered into agre...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Steel Limited Vs. Lindsay International (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.3904 of 2015 A.P.No.1734 of 2015 TATA STEEL LIMITED versus LINDSAY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.For the Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee , Sr.Adv., Lokenath Chatterjee, Adv., Joydeb Ghorai, Adv., Saugata Banerjee, Adv.For the Respondents : Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv., Mr.Deepak Kumar Jain, Adv.Heard On : 19.07.2016, 26.07.2016, 08.11.2016, 15.11. 2016, 24.11.2016. Judgment On : 28th November, 2016 Soumen Sen, J. :- The respondent is the award holder. The petitioner has filed an application being G.A.No.3904 of 2015 for stay of operation of an award passed on 25th August, 2015. The petitioner has also filed an application being A.P.No.1734 of 2015 for setting aside of the said award. The dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement dated 8th January, 2003, under which the petitioner was to manufacture and supply goods as...
Tag this Judgment!Rajyasree Ganguli Vs. Soumish Chandra Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
Unlisted GA No.3021 of 2016 PLA No.287 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF: SOURISH CHANDRA ROY (DEC) -ANDRAJYASREE GANGULI -VsSOUMISH CHANDRA ROY Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv.Mr.Deepnath Roychowdhury, Adv.Mr.Ayan Chakraborty, Adv...for the applicant. Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.S.K.Baid, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : November 24, 2016. The Court : The matter has been mentioned on behalf of the respondent with an offer that a part of the proceeds for letting out Nuddea House be paid to the applicant and the order of November 22, 2016 placing an embargo on further functions being held at Nuddea House be lifted. The matter had been mentioned on November 23, 2016, even before the order of November 22, 2016 was up on the server. was submitted on behalf of the respondent that since It several bookings had already been accepted for Nuddea House in the months of N...
Tag this Judgment!Moody Properties Limited and Anr. Vs. Cesc Limited and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side W.P.No.1227 of 2015 Moody Properties Limited & Anr. versus CESC Limited & ORS.For the petitioner:- Mr.Sabyasachi Choudhury Mr.Rajarshi Dutta Mr.Sayantan Bose Ms.Sreemoyee Purokayastha Advocates For the CESC:- Mr.Subir Sanyal Ms.Sumouli Sarkar Advocates For the Private Respondents:- Mr.Reetabrata Mitra Mr.P.Sarawagi Advocates Judgement On: - 24th November, 2016 I.P.MUKERJI, J. This is a very interesting electricity matter. There is a public company, limited by shares by the name of Moody Properties Limited. It appears to be a family company of the Modis. This company owns the property numbered as premises No.8A, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700 071. This is a four storeyed building. A private limited company Garutman (Literary Agent) PVT.LTD.is a tenant in respect of the ground floor, at least a part of if not the whole and a part of the fiRs.floor of the property. According to the admission made in the affidavit ...
Tag this Judgment!…petitioner Vs. Dalhousie Properties Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ORIGINAL SIDE) Before: The Hon'ble Justice RAKESH TIWARI And The Hon'ble Justice MIR DARA SHEKO G.A.No.546 of 2016 A.P.D. No.264 of 2015 C.S.No.223 of 2007 GLOBAL EXPORTS LIMITED Petitioner -VersusDALHOUSIE PROPERTIES LIMITED Respondent Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anirban Roy, Ms. Micky Chowdhury, Mr. Saptk Sanyal, Mr. Subhasis Pyne, Mr. S.N. Pyne for the Appellant Mr. David Mantosh, Advocate, Ms. Lopita Banerjee, Mr. S.R.Das, for the Respondent Last heard on Judgment on :15. 09.2016 :22. 11.2016. MIR DARA SHEKO,J.:1. The appellant/ defendant/ tenant, to be called on hereafter as the appellant. preferred this appeal assailing of the judgment dated 29th April, 2015 delivered by Learned Trial Judge in Civil Suit No.223 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, hereafter will be called on as the respondent., who obtained decree of eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. The case of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh P. Thakkar Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side W.P.No.55 of 2016 Rajesh P. Thakkar versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.For the petitioner:- Mr.Arindam Banerjee Mr.Rupak Ghosh Mr.Aishwariya Joyshree Advocates For the K.M.C.:- Mr.A.K. Ghosh Mr.F.Haque Mr.S.Chowdhury .Advocates For the Respondent No.7:- Mr.V.K.Purohit Advocate Judgement On: - 21st November, 2016 I.P.MUKERJI, J. Section 192 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is an extraordinary provision. Under it, the Municipal Commissioner seems to have unlimited power to inter alia change the assessment of a land or building on the ground that it was made erroneously or that fraud, mistake or accident prevented its proper assessment. I set out Section 192 (1) (vi) of the said Act, which is relevant in this case: 192. Amendment of Municipal Assessment Book- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 190 the Municipal Commissioner may, it any time, amend the Municipal Assessment Book...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »