Kolkata Court April 2016 Judgments
Chandmoni Majhin Vs. Coal India Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE W.P. No.841 of 2014 CHANDMONI MAJHIN Versus COAL INDIA LTD. & ORS. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Heard On: Judgment On:26. 02.16, 04.03.16 & 18.03.16 29.04.2016 For the Petitioner - Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv. For the Respondents - Mr. Alok Banerjee, Adv. Mr. S.M. Obaidullah, Adv. The Court - The petitioner was given employment in the Eastern Coalfields Limited (respondent no.2) on the 22nd of July, 1992 on account of the death of her husband who was an employee, while in service. During his lifetime, the petitioners husband had declared her date of birth as 1964. His own date of birth, according to the records, was the 4th of October, 1959.2. The petitioners claim in this proceeding is that her date of birth has been wrongly determined as 02.02.1956 on the basis of a medical examination which was conducted perfunctorily/ arbitrarily without following the rigours of the requisite Medical Jurisprudence,...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Avani Projects and Infrastructure Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.3957 of 2015 With GA No.313 of 2016 In C.S. No.162 of 2015 SAVITRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. AVANI PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Dated:29. h April, 2016 Appearance: Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. B. Menot, Adv. for the Plaintiff(s) Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv. . for the Defendant(s) The Court: - GA No.3957 of 2015 is an application filed on behalf of the defendant in the original CS No.162 of 2015 praying for time to file its Written Statement in the suit, while GA No.313 of 2016 was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking summons for judgment in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit under Order XXXVII C.P. Code for recovery of an amount of Rs.21,98,438/- along with certain ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendant had entered appearance in the suit on the 25...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Properties Vs. Youdhisthir Kr. Agarwal @ Dhanania and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
ORDER SHEET GA11722016 RVWO122016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PAWAN PROPERTIES Versus YOUDHISTHIR KR. AGARWAL @ DHANANIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 29th April, 2016. Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Adv., Mr.Amitava Das, Adv., Mr.Subhankar Nag, Adv., Mr.K.L.Yadav, Adv., Ms.Amrin Khatoon, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Adv., Mr.Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Adv., Mr.Shubrodip Roy, Adv., Ms.Sananda Ganguli, Adv., for the respondent. The Court : This application for review has been taken out as a last resort to thwart and delay the execution and/or implementation of the order dated 18th March, 2016. By the said order the Court did not entertain the prayer of the reviewist to stay the execution proceeding or to put the decree in suspended animation. It transpires from the record that the suit ended on the basis of a compromise decree. An attempt was made at the behest of the reviewist to re...
Tag this Judgment!Kamales Mallik Vs. Octavius Tea and Ind. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
GA No.3124 of 2009 In C.S. No.244 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KAMALES MALLIK Versus OCTAVIUS TEA & IND. LTD. & Ors. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date:29. h April, 2016 The Court: This is an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant Sethia Oils Limited for being added as a party defendant in the original suit.2. The petitioners claim is that it was inducted as a sublessee by the original defendant in a designated portion of the demised premises by virtue of a registered indenture of sub-lease executed on the 22nd day of May, 2003. The background of the matter is that the original indenture dated 5th March, 1965 was entered into between one of the co-owners, namely, Maniklal Mullick and the present defendant no.1 in respect of the concerned premises and certain specific conditions concerning the lease were narrated in that indenture.3. For the purpose of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Saha Vs. The Union of India and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP279of 2016 GOPAL SAHA -VersusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER And WP280of 2016 AJGAR SHEIKH -VersusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER For the Petitioner: in WP279of 2016 Mr Mainak Bose, Adv., Mr Ravi Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Petitioner: in WP280of 2016 Mr Soumya Mazumder, Adv., Mr Manoj Malhotra, Adv., Mr Mainak Ganguly, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr Rajarshee Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr Subir Kumar Saha, Adv. Hearing concluded on: April 27, 2016. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: April 28, 2016. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: The petitions involve a common issue and pertain to the same order of November 24, 2015.2. Though the petitions carried prayers challenging the constitutionality of amended Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, such challenge has been expressly abandoned at this stage on the ground that the petitions can be pursued otherwise since the order impugned is without jurisdiction.3. By the common order of Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. Indian Jute Mills Asso ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA2269of 2013 CS210of 2013 THE BENGAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY Versus INDIAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCITION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 28th April, 2016. Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Advocate General Mr.Reetrabrota Mitra, Adv.Mr.Ranjan Dev, Sr.Adv.Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Adv.The Court : This is an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules for summary judgement. Before proceeding to deal with the respective cases of the parties, the scope under the aforesaid provisions should be reminded. Rule 1 of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules clearly provides the applicability of the provisions relating to a particular nature of suit, which is clearly discernible from the language used therein. It would be apt to quote the said provision which is set out hereinbelow :1. Nature of cases in which applicable.-The provisions of this Chapter shall not be applicable save to suits,- (A) i...
Tag this Judgment!Anjan Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
W.P.No.1496 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Anjan Chakraborty versus The State of West Bengal & ORS.For the Petitioner : Mr.Sourav Sen, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Hearing concluded on : April 7, 2016 Judgment on : April 27, 2016 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The petitioner has assailed an Order dated June 20, 2005 passed by the Joint Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal negating the claim of the petitioner to be substituted in place and stead of a deceased allottee in respect of an immovable property lying and situate at Salt Lake. Mr.Sourav Sen learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the plot of land in question was allotted in favour of Govinda Kumar Ghosh and Hemanta Kumar Ghosh jointly by a letter of allotment dated November 16, 1983. The allottees had paid the full Salami. One of the co-allottees namely, Govinda Kumar Ghosh had died. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Traxo Trade Vs. The Federal Bank Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
GA No.3613 of 2010 CS No.455 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TRAXO TRADE -VersusTHE FEDERAL BANK LTD.& ORS.Appearance: Mr.Gautam Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.S.K.Bakshi, Adv...for the plaintiff. Mr.S.Sengupta, Adv...for the defendant No.3. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 26th April, 2016. The Court : By this application of the defendant No.3, seeks to strike out its name from the category of the defendants in a suit for recovery of loss and damages for action and/or inaction on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaint case proceeds that there was a dealing and transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in respect of the bill of lading as well as the letter of credits in couRs.of import and export of the materials. It is further stated that despite the payment of the entire amount due to the rightful claimant including the statutory authorities, the defendant No.1 have wrongfully and illegally intervened i...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Htc Engineering (1958) Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE A.P218of 2006 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. -VSHTC ENGINEERING (1958) PRIVATE LTD. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON For the Petitioner For the Respondent Judgment on Mr. A.K. Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv. 25.04.2016 Harish Tandon, J.: The challenge is made to an award made and published on 17th March, 2006 by the Arbitrators allowing the part of the claims of the Petitioner and counter claims of the Respondent herein. In other words, by the said award the Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,48,56,134/- to the Respondent together with interest @ 18% per annum on the amount from the date of the award till payment apart from the costs and expenses for the arbitration. The facts revealed from the respective stands of the parties before the Arbitrator and before this Court are adumbrated herein below:-- (i) The Petitioner being the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Aditya Ganguly Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP350of 2016 SRI ADITYA GANGULY -VersusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS For the Petitioner: Mr Arijit Chakraborty, Adv., Mr Debaditya Banerjee, Adv., Nilotpol Chowdhury, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr S. B. Saraf, Adv., Mr K. K. Maity, Adv. Hearing concluded on: April 20, 2016. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: April 22, 2016. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: The petitioner is a Customs broker. Customs brokers were previously known as Customs House Agents and such brokers are governed by the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter here pertains to the suspension of the petitioners licence as a Customs broker. The petitioner alleges that the order of suspension is without jurisdiction and betrays the closed mind of the licensing authority and, as such, the usual remedy of a post-decisional hearing would be an exercise ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »