Kolkata Court May 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.
Shri Badrinarain Alloys and Steels Ltd. Vs. Biel Hirjee and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2016
ORDER GA No.3586 of 2015 CS No.134 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SHRI BADRINARAIN ALLOYS & STEELS LTD.Versus BIEL HIRJEE & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 5th May 2016. Appearance: Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Advocate Mr.Manik Das, Advocate Ms.Darshana Sett, Advocate ...for the petitioners/defendants. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate ...for the plaintiffs. Mr.Amitava Das, Advocate Mr.Mohit Gupta, Advocate Mr.M.K.Poddar, Advocate for the defendant no.2. The respective counsels appearing for the parties have principally agreed on the settled proposition of law that the court should not venture to look into any other statements of facts and documents other than the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, while considering an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Such leave was felt necessary by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint, as part of the cau...
Shri Badrinarain Alloys and Steels Ltd. Vs. Niel Hirjee and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2016
ORDER GA No.3586 of 2015 CS No.134 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SHRI BADRINARAIN ALLOYS & STEELS LTD.Versus NIEL HIRJEE & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 5th May 2016. Appearance: Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Advocate Mr.Manik Das, Advocate Ms.Darshana Sett, Advocate ...for the petitioners/defendants. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate ...for the plaintiffs. Mr.Amitava Das, Advocate Mr.Mohit Gupta, Advocate Mr.M.K.Poddar, Advocate for the defendant no.2. The respective counsels appearing for the parties have principally agreed on the settled proposition of law that the court should not venture to look into any other statements of facts and documents other than the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, while considering an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Such leave was felt necessary by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint, as part of the cau...
Abp Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Arindam Sinha May 4, 2016 WP305of 2007 ABP Private Limited versus State of West Bengal & ORS.Mr.R.N.Majumdar, Advocate with Mr.Susanta Pal, Advocate Mr.Soumitra Dutta, Advocate Mr.Sourav Chakrabarti, Advocate Mr.Supratim Bhattacharya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, Advocate with Mr.Ravi Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the respondent no.3 The Court :- The challenge of the petitioner Company is directed against order dated 6th February, 2007 passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal . Mr.Majumdar appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is perverse. His client had sought to produce additional documents which were not accepted by the Tribunal on reasons that cannot be sustained. Mr.Bhanja Chowdhury, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the workman and submits the relevant rules are Rule 20C read with...
Harsh Polyfabric Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2016
OD-9 WP No.378 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction HARs.POLYFABRIC PVT.LTD.& ANR. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE , KOLKATA II COMMISSIONERATE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 4th May, 2016. Appearance: Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Dipak Dey, Adv.Ms.Noelle Banerjee, Adv.Ms.Rimpa Rajpal, Adv.Mr.S.B. Saraf, Adv.Mr.K.K. Maity, Adv.The Court : The petitioners challenge an order-in-original dated December 22, 2015 passed pursuant to several show-cause notices issued to the fiRs.petitioner company. In short, the issue before the relevant commissioner was whether the product manufactured and sold by the petitioner company was liable to be regarded as a textile or merely as a plastic product. The petitioners contended that the product was covered by Chapter 56 of the FiRs.Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioners sought to avail of a total exemption from duty under such provision. The concerned commissioner h...
Ranglal Bagaria Huf Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Other ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WP346of 2015 RANGLAL BAGARIA HUF -VersusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS And WP347of 2015 SUDERSHAN PRASAD BAGARIA -VersusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS For the Petitioners: Mr Mr Mr Mr R. N. Bajoria, Sr Adv., J.P. Khaitan, Sr Adv., Akhilesh Gupta, Adv., Deepak Jain, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr S. B. Saraf, Adv., Mr Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. Hearing concluded on: April 28, 2016. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: May 4, 2016. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: These two petitions pertain to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment under Section 147 thereof in respect of assessment year 2007-08.2. There is no dispute that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act applies. In the case of the petitioning assessee in the first matter, the proposed reassessment would be a second reassessment. In respect of the petitioner in the second matter, the proposed reas...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction Original Side G.A.No.949 of 2013 PLA No.255 of 2011 In the Goods of : Purushottam Dass Bangur For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr.Advocate Mr.P.K Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Hearing concluded on : April 20, 2016 Judgment on : May 4, 2016 S.P.Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Debajyoti Datta, Advocate Adil Rashid, Advocate Amiya Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The propounders seeking grant of probate of the Will of Purushottam Dass Bangur, since deceased has applied for the caveat of the son of the deceased given in adoption, namely, Lakshmi Niwas Bangur (hereinafter referred to as the caveator) to be discharged and probate of the Will of the deceased to be granted. Mr.S.K.Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, consequent to the caveator being given in adoption, he had ceased to have any right in the natural family in view of th...
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Coal India Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2016
O-23 WP No.547 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd May, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Swapan Kr. Dutta, Adv.Mr.Dipankar Das Gupta, Adv.Mr.Sambuddha Dutta, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.L.K. Gupta, Sr.Adv.Mr.Kalimuddin Mondal, Adv.The Court : The grievance of the petitioner herein is that a promotion that was due to the petitioner in July of 2008 was originally stalled on the ground that the employer contemplated instituting disciplinary action against the petitioner, it was subsequently denied to the petitioner on the ground that the disciplinary action was instituted against the petitioner and it was finally declined, notwithstanding the initial disciplinary action being dropped, on the ground that a minor penalty had been slapped on the petitioner in the subsequent disciplinary action by the time the fiRs.action had been abandoned. The petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›