Kolkata Court December 2016 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.
……… Plaintiff Vs. Mrs. Shelly Roy Chowdhury and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
Form No.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag T.S No.3 of 2014 Mr. Atin Law Plaintiff Versus Mrs. Shelly Roy Chowdhury & Anr. Defendants For Plaintiff: Mr. Utpal Bose, Senior Advocate with Mr. Debdut Mukherjee & Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Advs. For Defendants: Mr. Sandip Kumar Dey with Ms. Soma Roy, Advocates Hearing concluded on:21. t December, 2016. Judgement delivered on:23. d December, 2016. R.K.Bag,J.One Profulla Churn Law executed his last will and testament on September 24, 1976 in respect of his estate and properties and appointed his son and wife as joint executor and executrix respectively in respect of the said will. Profulla Churn Law died on May 12, 2011 leaving behind his wife Sova Law, son Atin Law, daughter Shelly Roy Chowdhury and daughter Shyamali Dutta, as his legal heirs. Satya Charan Pain, Santosh Kumar Pain, Hari Prasad Nath, Achala Nath Ganguly and Sanat Kumar Mukherje...
Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble Mr.Justice Subrata Talukdar W.P.1267 of 2013 Santosh Kumar Pandey -vs.State of West Bengal & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya For the State : Mr.Joytosh Majumdar (Addl. Asst. Adv.General) Mr.Rezanul Hossain Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 : Mr.Partha Sarathi Deb Barman Heard on : 21/03/2016 & 01/07/2016 Judgement on : 21/12/2016 Subrata Talukdar, J.: In this writ petition the petitioner claims approval to a permanent post in the School in issue namely, Balkrishna Vithal Nath Vidyalaya represented by the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Memo impugned of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) (for short DI (SE).Kolkata dated 8th November, 2013 rejecting his prayer. The DI (SE).while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for approval by an elaborate order, has raised several issues. First, the appointment of the petition...
Saket Enclave Pvt Ltd and Ors Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.3602 of 2016 With W.P.No.683 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: SAKET ENCLAVE PVT LTD AND ORS Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 21st December, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Arindam Banerjee, Adv.Ms.Arpita Saha, Adv.Ms.Sutapa Dutta, Adv.Mr.Rahul Podder, Adv.For the petitioner Ms.Sanjukta Ray, Adv.For the Respondent Nos.6,7,8 and 9 Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Ms.Munmum Tewary, Adv.For the State Respondents Mr.Alok Kr. Ghosh, Adv.MRS.Sima Chakraborty, Adv.For the K.M.C. The Court : The petitioners claimed to be the owners of a plot of land being Plot No.40, Motital Basak Lane, Kolkata 700054 under P.S. Phoolbagan and the petitioners purchased the said land in its divided and demarcated condition from Amarendra Nath Chakraborty and others by registered deed of sale dated 12th June, 2009. It is the further claim of the petitioners that since the date of purch...
Gatha Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Toplight Commercials Limited and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.1021 of 2016 CS No.210 of 2008 Gatha Apparels PVT.LTD.Versus Toplight Commercials Limited & Anr. BEFORE: The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad Date : 20th December, 2016 Mr.Rupak Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Aritra Basu, Advocate Mr.Deep Raj Basu, Advocate .for plaintiff. Mr.Sarathi Dasgupta, Advocate Mr.R.Banerjee, Advocate ...for defendants. The Court: This application for amendment of the plaint arises out of suit for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to claim any rent or amenities charges or maintenance from the plaintiff under the agreement dated 26th March, 2005 until compliance of all the terms of the agreements. The plaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint by insertion of the following paragraphs 33. The shopping Mall has only run for a brief period and was thereafter closed down completely. Shortly after closure, the Mall was opened but the shop rooms were converted ...
Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited Vs. Hooghly Mills Company Limited a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.862 of 2014 CS No.168 of 2009 Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited Versus Hooghly Mills Company Limited & ORS.BEFORE: The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad Date : 20th December, 2016 Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Sr.Advocate Mr.Sanjoy Bose, Advocate Ms.Pritha Bhowmick, Advocate Mr.Aniruddha Sinha, Advocate .for plaintiff. Mr.Sourabh Mazumdar, Advocate Ms.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate ...for defendant No.1. Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate Mr.P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.S.Rudra, Advocate ...for defendant No.4. The Court: Plaintiff had prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated January 12, 2009 by directing the defendant No.1 to execute and register a deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff with further direction upon the defendant No.2 and/or the defendant No.4 to act in terms of the agreement dated 24th March, 1988 and to execute a deed of conveyance thereof; and also prayed for a d...
Bholanath Ray and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
ORDER SHEET WP NO.1654 OF2010IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BHOLANATH RAY & ORS.Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 20th December, 2016. Appearance : Mr.Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv.Ms.Indrani Chatterjee, Mr.Parvej Anam, Advs., for the petitioneRs.Mr.Kishore Dutta, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ashok Kumar Jena, Adv., for the respondent. Mr.B.Sinha Roy, Mr.Nripendra Nath Mondal, Advs., for the Union of India. The Court : A section of the retired employees of Kolkata Port Trust complain that the Central Government is yet to revise their pays in accordance with two notifications issued. The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners refers to the initial revision of pay scale. He submits that, by a subsequent decision dated March 19, 1996 the initial revision was set aside. The decision dated March 19, 1996 was assailed by way of several writ petitions. Ultimately, by an order dated Apri...
Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Jt. Secty. to the Govt. of India, Minis.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
ORDER SHEET WP No.868 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE INDIAN POTASH LTD.Versus JT. SECTY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINIS. FINANCE DEPT. REVEN BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 20th December, 2016. Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Ms.Anupa Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sanjay Kr. Baid, Adv.for the petitioner Mr.Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Mr.Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adversus for the respondent The Court : The petitioner assails an order passed by the Government on revision. By the impugned order, a request for draw back has been rejected. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had exported imported fertilizer to Bangladesh. He refers to a letter dated March 28, 2000 and submits that, at the time of the export, the petitioner had expressed its intention to claim the draw back. The claim for draw back was made in the bill of shipping itself. He refers to the bill of shipping and the claim made therein. He submits t...
The Property Company Ltd. Vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN ACO No.91 of 2016 APO No.222 of 2016 THE PROPERTY COMPANY LTD.versus ROHINTEN DADDY MAZDA For the Petitioner : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Sanjib Kumar Mal, Adv., Mr.Dibanath Dey, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms.Sreya Basu Mallick, Adv., Mr.Souma Sil, Adv., Heard On : 08.08.2016, 07.09.2016, 21.09.2016, 02.11.2016, 16.11.2016, 30.11.2016, 15.12.2016. Judgment On : 16th December, 2016 Soumen Sen, J.:- The short point arises in this appeal is whether the Company Law Board lacked authority in receiving the petition under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013 beyond the period prescribed in sub-section 4 thereof. The facts limited to the aforesaid issue are summarized below. Rohinten Daddy Mazda became the owner of 20 shares of the appellant Company by a grant of probate on 30th November, 1990. The petitioner on 1st March,...
Dollon’s Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
W.P. No.133 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Dollons Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Radhika Singh, Advocate Ms. R. Mukherjee, Advocate For the WBIDC : Mr. R.S. De, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amitava Mitra, Advocate Hearing concluded on Judgment on : November 17, 2016 : December 15, 2016 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The petitioner has assailed a reasoned Order dated November 30, 2010 passed by the Executive Director of the respondent No.2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had established a milk product unit in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner became entitled to subsidy under the Central Scheme as well as the prevailing State Scheme. The State Scheme in question is the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. The petitioner had filed a writ petition...
Lumbini Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-2016
W.P.No.533 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Lumbini Industries PVT.LTD.versus Union of India & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K Chowdhary, Advocate Ms.Saswati Joardar, Advocate Mr.R.P.Paul, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Kaushik Chandra, Additional Solicitor General Ms.Aishwarya Rajyashree, Advocate Hearing concluded on Judgment on : November 22, 2016 : December 15, 2016 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- A Company registered in a foreign country has sought compensation from the Union of India for the loss of materials in transit through India as also withdrawal of a demand notice dated March 26, 2002 issued by the authorities on Company. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is a company incorporated in Nepal. The petitioner had imported goods. In accordance with the treaty existing between Nepal and India, the petitioner had transported such imported goods from the port of Kolkata to Nepal. The goods were being t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »