Kolkata Court August 2016 Judgments
Il and Fs Financial Services Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Moorgate Industries Ind ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
OD-54 ORDER SHEET GA2345of 2016 With CS200of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.& ORS.VERSUS MOORGATE INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 10th August, 2016. Appearance: Mr.S.K.Kapur, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sanjay Ginodia, Adv.Mr.Ravi Kapur, Adv.Mr.R.Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.S.Dutt Majumder, Adv.Ms.Pubali Sinha Chowdhury, Adv..for the plaintiffs. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.S.K.Singhi, Adv.Ms.Riti Basu, Adv..for the defendant no.1 Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Sr.Adv.Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Adv.Ms.A.Jacob, Adv.Mr.S.Chowdhury, Adv..for the defendant no.2 Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Adv.Mr.Debasis Bhumik, Adv..for the defendant no.3. The Court: The plaintiffs are a consortium of non-banking financial companies who claim to have lent and advanced a sum of Rs.900 crore to the third defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the amount due from the third defendant is in ex...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niranjan Kajaria Vs. Vijay Kumar Kajaria and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT232OF2016GA2506of 2016 WITH CS696of 1978 RAM NIRANJAN KAJARIA Versus VIJAY KUMAR KAJARIA & ORS.APOT244of 2016 GA2112of 2016 WITH CS696of 1978 PAWAN KUMAR KAJARIA versus Sr.VIJAY KUMAR KAJARIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 9th August, 2016. Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Kuldip Mullick, Advocate Ms.Pooja Shukla, Advocate Mr.P.K.Tripathi, Advocate ..for defendant no.2(D) (in item5) for appellants (in item6) Mr.A.Roy, Advocate Ms.N.Jalan, Advocate Mr.R.Upadhyaya, Advocate Mr.S.Basak, Advocate for petitioner/appellant(in item5) Mr.Pradip Dutt, Sr.Advocate Mr.D.K.Dey, Advocate Ms.Arunima Lala, Advocate for respondents 1(b) & 1(j) Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Saunak Sengupta, Advocate ..for defendant No.5 The Court :-This is the best example where the parties are making much ado about nothing. In the fiRs.round of litigation, whether exp...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. Vs. Sujit Kumar Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
In The High Court At Calcutta In Appeal from its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side APO523of 2014 WP304of 2009 National Insurance Company Limited & ORS.-vs.Sujit Kumar Banerjee With APO521of 2014 WP999of 2009 National Insurance Company Limited & ORS.-vs.Sujit Kumar Banerjee Before Chellur : The Honble The Chief Justice Dr. Manjula & The Honble Justice Mr.Arijit Banerjee For the appellants : Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Adv.Mr.Supriya Dubey, Adv.Ms.Shilpi Ganguly, Adv.For the respondents : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Soumen Datta, Adv.Ms.Soma Kar Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Dhruv Goren, Adv.Heard On : 15.03.2016, 05.04.2016 & 17.05.2016 Judgment On : 09.08.2016 Arijit Banerjee:(1) The abovementioned appeals arise out of two separate judgments and ordeRs.both dated 2 December, 2014, passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP No.304 of 2009 and WP No.999 of 2009. However, since the said two writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts, the two appeals h...
Tag this Judgment!The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. The Cricket Associatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side G.A.973 of 2016 APOT105of 2016 W.P.2662 of 1996 The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. versus The Cricket Association of Bengal & ORS.BEFORE: The Honble CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & The Honble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE For the CMC: Mr.Pronob Kumar Dutta, Sr.Adv.Mr.Alok Kumar Ghosh, Adv.Mr.S.K. Debnath, Adv.MRS.Sima Chakraborty. Adv.For the Writ Petitioners/Respondents: Mr.Joydeep Kar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Billawadal Bhattacharyya, Adv.Mr.B.Boral, Adv.Mr.S.Chakraborty. Adv.Heard on : 21.6.2016, 26.7.2016 & 27.7.2016. Delivered on : 09.08.2016. Dr. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice: The above appeal pertains to demand of advertisement tax imposed by Calcutta Municipal Corporation so far as the advertisements undertaken within the Eden Garden grounds by the respondent Cricket Association of Bengal. We are not disposing of the appeal on merits since there is serious dispute with regard to the so-called sufficient cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Dewar's Garage Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
GA No.2266 of 2014 GA No.2267 of 2014 APOT No.372 of 2014 WP No.102 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DEWAR'S GARAGE LIMITED Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAKESH TIWARI And The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBRATA TALUKDAR Date : 9th August, 2016. Appearance Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Adv.Mr.M.Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Chaitali Bhattacharya, Adv.The Court : On going through the application and after hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay of about 56 days in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2014 in WP No.102 of 2013 (Dewars Garage Limited versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.).By the aforesaid order, the Writ Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Controlling Authority allowing the application filed by the respondent No.3 for...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Devi Karnani Vs. Mahendra Kumar Karnani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
OD-4 GA No.1840 of 2015 GA No.1575 of 2015 CS No.117 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RADHA DEVI KARNANI Versus MAHENDRA KUMAR KARNANI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 8th August, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Samrat Sen, Sr.Adv.Mr.K.Thakkar, Adv.Mr.A.Bagaria, Adv.Mr.A.Poddar, Adv..for the plaintiff Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.P.Jain, Adv..for the defendant The Court : This is a rather unusual matter. The suit has been lodged, but it is still not clear as to whether the suit should or can be carried forward. It is necessary to record some facts before the technicalities are noticed. The named plaintiff is Radha Devi Karnani, who is said to be aged more than 90 and a widow for nearly half a century. The suit has been filed by the grand-daughter through the second son of the named plaintiff as the plaintiffs next friend on the ground that the plaintiff is mentally and phys...
Tag this Judgment!Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baroma Agro Products and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
O-5 GA555of 2012 GA1512of 2013 IN CS27of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PARAKH VANIJYA PVT.LTD.Versus BAROMA AGRO PRODUCTS & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 8th August, 2016. For the plaintiff : Mr.Jishnu Saha,Sr.Advocate Mr.Debnath Ghosh,Advocate Mr.Sanjib Dawn,Advocate Mr.Debashish Mukhopadhya,Advocate For the defendants : Mr.Siddhartha Mitra,Sr.Advocate Mr.Sayantan Basu,Advocate Mr.Tinkori Jana,Advocate Mr.Prithwiraj Sinha,Advocate Mr.Goutam Kumar Ray,Advocate Mr.Sourav Jana,Advocate The Court : - This is a rolled-up action for both infringement and passing-off. The plaintiff is the registered owner of a label mark in class30. The plaintiff sells rice and the most prominent feature of its label mark is the word Malabar. The plaintiff has no registration in respect of word Malabar. The plaintiff enjoys an injunction for a considerable period on the ground of the substantially similar packaging used by the defendants in m...
Tag this Judgment!Sharmila Shetty and Anr. Vs. Hemen Barooah Benevolent and Family Trust ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
O-6 GA No.1578 of 2014 CS No.175 of 2014 GA No.406 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHARMILA SHETTY & ANR. Versus HEMEN BAROOAH BENEVOLENT & FAMILY TRUST & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 8th August, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Sr.Adv.Mr.S.Ghose, Adv.Mr.Satadweep Bhattacharya, Adv.The Court : The suit challenges the amendments to a deed of trust of April 5, 2011 effected during the lifetime of the settlor who was the managing trustee and the sole beneficiary of the trust during his lifetime. The trust was created by a registered document of April 5, 2011 by Hemendra Prasad Barooah, who made most of his money from tea and diversified into related and other business. The trust, named as the Hemen Barooah Benevolent and Family Trust, was started with a corpus of Rs.10,000/- with the right to receive gifts and donations from otheRs.The deed is in the form of an...
Tag this Judgment!Eva Seth Vs. Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
C.S.No.270 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Eva Seth versus Bank of Maharashtra For the Plaintiff : Mr.S.Ghosh, Advocate Mr.P.Saha, Advocate Mr.S.S.Bhutoria, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate Ms.Aruna Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Alokananda Sen, Advocate Hearing concluded on : August 3, 2016 Judgment on : August 5, 2016 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The plaintiff has sought recovery of various sums of money on account of damages and alleged entitlement of the plaintiff from the defendant on account of the banking transactions had between them. The defendant has filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The issues in the instant suit were initially framed on April 18, 2011. Such issues were reframed on January 25, 2012. The issues in the instant suit are as follows:1. Is the plaintiff entitled to the claim made in the plaint?.2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?.3. Are the claims of the plaintiff barred by res judi...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Bala Mondal (Deceased) Vs. Annada Prasad Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2016
ORDER SHEET TS No.10 of 2010 GA No.3569 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION IN THE GOODS OF: GAURI BALA MONDAL (DECEASED) Versus ANNADA PRASAD MONDAL -VSSUBHAS CHANDRA MANDAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 5th August, 2016. Appearance: Mr.Pramit Kumar Ray, Sr.Adv.Ms.Suparna Mukherjee Adv.Mr.Avirup Mandal, Adv.For the Executor. Mr.Debmalya Ghosal, Adv.Mr.Ranjit Kumar Basu, Adv.For the defendadnt no.1. The Court :- This is an application for grant of a probate of the Will of the Testatrix dated March 31, 2008. On one the filing of a caveat and an affidavit in support of caveat, the probate proceeding was treated as a contentious cause. A testamentary suit number was allotted. The proceeding was treated as suit and was heard as such. By an order dated October 10, 2012 issues for trial in the suit were framed. Such issues are as follows:- 1. Whether testatrix Gouri Bala Mondal has executed her last Will and testament dated ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »