Kolkata Court February 2016 Judgments
Aurobinda Kumar Biswas Vs. Allahabad Bank and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Nishita Mhatre And The Honble Justice Tapash Mookherjee February 8, 2016 APO186of 2014 WP154of 2009 Aurobinda Kumar Biswas versus Allahabad Bank & ORS.Mr.R.N.Majumdar, Advocate with Mr.Himadri Kumar Bandopadhyay, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Partha Bhattacharya, Advocate for the respondent The Court :- The appellant was employed with the respondent bank for a number of yeaRs.On the bank discovering certain financial irregularities committed by the appellant, it suspended him from 20th July, 1998. Later, that order of suspension was revoked on 20th May, 2002. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5th May, 1999 alleging that he had committed several acts of financial irregularities with respect to opening of a large number of a foreign letters of credit on behalf of certain customers of the bank. The appellant denied the charges in his reply to the show cause notice dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Phooltas Harsco Rail Solutions Private Limited Vs. Auto Components Pri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION G.A. 142 OF2016with C.S. 27 OF2016PHOOLTAS HARSCO RAIL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED -VSAUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON For the Petitioner / Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr. R. Bhattacharya, Adv., For the Respondent / Opposite Party : Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Adv., Mr. S.R. Chowdhury, Adv. Judgment on :08. 02/2016 Harish Tandon, J.: On the returnable date the defendants after notice appear and raise a vehement objections to continue with the ex-parte ad interim order of injunction on various grounds including suppression of material facts. Normally the Court should not pass an ex-parte injunction without giving notice of application to the other side. There is an exception to the aforesaid rule evident from Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing recording of reasons before passing such order if the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by d...
Tag this Judgment!Skipper Limited Vs. Akash Bansal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE G.A. 237 of 2016 With T.A. 1 of 2016 SKIPPER LIMITED -VSAKASH BANSAL & ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON For the Petitioner For the Respondent Judgment on Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv., Siddharth Das, Adv., Souresh Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv. 08/02/2016 Harish Tandon, J.: The power to grant relief in the form of an injunction in a suit for infringement of a trade mark or passing off is provided under Section 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Sub Section 2 of the said section further provides an ex-parte injunction or an interlocutory order relating to discovery of documents, preservation of infringing goods, documents or other evidence related to the subject matter of the suit and restraining the defendant from passing off or dealing with his assets in any manner which may diversely affect plaintiffs ability to recover damages, costs or othe...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswar Pramanick and Ors. Vs. Chabi Rani Sadhukhan and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
ORDER SHEET GA No.3849 of 2015 EC No.237 of 2015 GA No.3659 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: MAHESWAR PRAMANICK & ORS.Versus CHABI RANI SADHUKHAN & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 4th February, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Ashok Kr. Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Susovan Sengupta, Adv.Mr.Sachidananda Panda, Adv..for the applicants. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.Mr.Lal ratan Mondal, Adv..for the decree-holder. The Court :-Some of the judgement-debtors have resisted the decree for eviction by taking out an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the decree is not executable for the following reasons:Firstly, the decree is a nullity having passed against a dead person. Secondly, the decree is passed in favour of the executor original competent appointed plaintiff Court. in the without Thirdly, Will made obtaining the and the applicants published probate being...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Ashok Kumar Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
ORDER GA No.3371 of 2015 CS No.273 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Versus ASHOK KUMAR COMPANY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 4th February, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate. Mr.D.Gomes, Advocate. Mr.A.Deb, Advocate. The Court:-Deriving an inspiration from the several judgements rendered by the different High Courts against unknown persons claimed given assumed including name Ashok injunction and Kumar, several appointment of reliefs the are Court Commissioners for inspection and investigation. The plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of the trademark Lakme and assumed the goodwill and reputation in the commercial market and alleged in the plaint that several persons whose identity could not be disclosed are selling their products in such name in the market and, therefore, an injunction should be passed restraining them from selling of and/or dealing with and/or marketing thei...
Tag this Judgment!Re: Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. Vs. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CA NO.714 OF2015WITH CP NO.33 OF1988RE: HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD.Versus TURNER MORRISON & Co.LTD. CA NO.708 OF2015WITH CP NO.33 OF1988RE: HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD.Versus TURNER MORRISON & Co.LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 4th February, 2016. Mr.D.Khosla, Mr.R.K.Gupta, Mr.A.Marwahfor Hungerford Investment Trust LTD.Mr.P.Chatterjee, Mr.U.Bose, senior advocate, Mr.D.N.Sharma, Mr.A.Basu, Mr.L.Chatterjeefor Turner Morrison & Co.LTD.Mr.H.K.Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.S.Chatterjee, Ms.S.Chatterjeefor RBI. Mr.K.Dutta, senior advocate, Mr.A.Banerjee, Mr.R.Kapoor, Mr.R.Ghoshalappear. The Court : Judges summons in CA No.708 of 2015 has been taken out primarily for a direction upon certain income tax officials requiring them to appear before this court for deposition and to be cross-examined. The said officials have been named in paragraph 11. Prayer [b].in the Judges summons is for i...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Engineering Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs. M/S. Super Gases and Appliancespvt.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
CS No.550 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TITAN ENGINEERING CO.PVT.LTD.-VersusM/S.SUPER GASES & APPLIANCES LTD.& ORS.PVT.Appearance: Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.Ms.Pallovi Gagoi, Adv...for the plaintiff. Mr.Aritra Basu, Adv...for the plaintiff No.1. Mr.P.K.Sengupta, (in person) ...the defendant No.2. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 3rd February, 2016. The Court : The preliminary additional issue being whether the suit is maintainable in its present form as framed by order dated 7th January, 2016 has been argued by the parties. The argument made by Mr.Sengupta, the defendant no.2, appearing in person, had been recorded in the order dated 7th January, 2016. He had relied upon the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff which carried an admission that the Board Resolution dated 7th May, 1993 was, indeed, a general instruction and the cause of action for the suit did not arise in 1993. The plaint case is that the cause of a...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dutt and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
ORDER SHEET EC600of 2015 GA3495of 2015 CS99of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BIDHAN NIRMAN PVT.LTD.Versus DUTT & Co.PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 3rd February, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Pramit Roy, Sr.Adv.Mr.A.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Avirup Mondol, Adv.Mr.A.Mondol, Adv.for the decree holder. Mr.Dhiraj Trivedi, Adv.Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv.Mr.Tanraj Ladia, Adv.Mr.Subhranshu Trivedi, Adv.Ms.Abha Tiwari, Adv.for the judgment debtors.The Court : It reminds me of the golden words of Sir Vivian Bose, J. real trouble starts after getting decree. This is an apparent example where a successful litigant is still at the doorstep of the Court seeking recovery of possession through process of law. The decree holder, being the owner of the premises no.76/1, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata 700 006, demised the same in favour of the judgment debtor, namely, Dutt & Co.Private Limited on the strength of a deed of lease dated 6th August, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Commissionerate Vs. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL AT WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble Justice Soumitra Pal The Honble Justice Mir Dara Sheko APO No.236 of 2015 W.P.No.393 of 2014 Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Durgapur Commissionerate Versus Rohit Ferro Tech LTD.& ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.R.N.Das, Senior Advocate, MRS.Santa Mitra. For the Respondents : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Mehta. Judgment on : 3rd February, 2016. Soumitra Pal, J:Though this appeal was heard along with MAT974of 2015 and APO No.187 of 2015 as common questions of law are involved, for clarity, this judgment is delivered separately. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Durgapur Commissionerate, against the judgment dated 26th August, 2014 passed in W.P.393 of 2014 (Rohit Ferro Tech Limited and others versus Settlement Commission and otheRs.whereby the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:In this cas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Ii Vs. Pilani Investment and Indus ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Honble Justice Asha Arora ITA291of 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II Versus PILANI INVESTMENT & INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.Advocate for the Appellant: Mr.M.P. Agarwal, Adv.Mr.P.Dudhoria, Adv.Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Siddharth Das, Adv.Mr.Asim Choudhury, Adv.Hearing concluded on: January 20, 2016 Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2016. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. The Revenue has come up in appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1920 (Kol.) of 2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. The questions of law suggested by the revenue for consideration are as follows:i) Whether, the mere disclosure of the amount of inter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »