Kolkata Court January 2017 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.
Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee Vs. Shree Ranisati Jute Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2017
ORDER SHEET GA No.3376 of 2016 EC No.71 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE Versus SHREE RANISATI JUTE PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 10th January, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Arnab Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Surjadipta Seth, Adv.Mr.Rupayan Deb, Adv.Mr.S.S.Bhutoria, Adv.The Court : Mr.Chandan Chowdhury is the applicant in GA No.3376 of 2016. The limited question arises in this application is whether Mr.Chandan Chowdhury is entitled to recall of the order dated 20th January, 2016 and consequently restoration of the application being GA No.804 of 2005. Mr.Chandan Chowdhury claims to be a tikha tenant and tried to resist the execution of the decree against him along with various persons alleged to have been inducted by him as sub-tenants. It appears that Mr.Chandan Chowdhury along with some of the occupants filed applications in the nature of Order XXI Rule 97 read with Rule...
Tapan Ranjan Maiti Vs. Shyamal Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-2017
OD-2 GA No.3212 of 2016 CS265of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TAPAN RANJAN MAITI -VsSHYAMAL SARKAR Appearance Mr Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv. petitioner Mr Chayan Gupta, Adv. respondent BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date: January 9, 2017. The Court:- A short but interesting point of law is raised in this application whether an application for lodging fresh summons under Order IX rule 5 of the Code read with Rule 6 and 7 of Chapter VIII of the Original Side Rules can be entertained by the Court while extending the time in absence of the defendant. In other words, whether the defendant has a vested right to be heard before the Court proceeds to extend the time for lodging fresh summons. Admittedly, the summons was lodged with the sherif for its service upon the defendant. Later on, the plaintiff detected that there was a defect in the plaint and after its rectification omitted to lodge the fresh summons within the time indicate...
Land and Bricks and Entertainments Limited and Anr. Vs. The Kolkata Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side W.P.No.46 of 2016 Land and Bricks and Entertainments Limited & Anr. versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.For the petitioners:- Mr.Arindam Banerjee Mr.Sankarsan Sarkar ..Advocates For the KMC: - Mr.Alok Kumar Ghosh Mr.Barin Banerjee Mr.Dilip Chatterjee Mr.Debangshu Mondal Advocates Judgement On: - 6th January, 2017 I.P.MUKERJI, J. Section 179 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is the subject matter of interpretation, in this writ application. The said section provides for making of the annual assessment and revision thereof every six yeaRs.The two provisos under Section 179 (2) of the said Act is the subject matter of interpretation. The two provisos are set out below: provided that when annual valuation of any land or building has not be revised on the expiry of any such period for reasons to be recorded in writing, the previous annual valuation shall continue to remain in force until it...
M/S. Rotomac Electricals Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2017
OD-1 APO280of 2016 AP186of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS PVT.LIMITED -VsUNION OF INDIA Appearance Mr Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Sr Adv.Mr Malay Dhar, Adv.Mr Biswajit Sarkar, Adv. for the petitioner Ms Aparna Banerjee, Adv. for the respondent BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE -ANDThe Honble JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY Date: January 6, 2017. The Court:- The appeal arises out of an order of August 18, 2016 by which the petitioners challenge to an arbitral award of December 22, 2015 was repelled. The appellant submits that though the legal argument put forth before the Single Bench was accepted by the order impugned, the purport thereof was not appreciated. There are two facets to the challenge launched by the appellant: for the better part of the appellants claim being declined; and, for the counter-claim being allowed almost in its entirety. On the fiRs.aspect, the appellant submits that both the arbitral...
Utpal Dasgupta Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sinha and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-2017
O-87 APO346of 2016 APOT No.433 of 2016 GA No.3670 of 2016 AP No.364 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UTPAL DASGUPTA Versus MRINAL KANTI SINHA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY Date : 5th January, 2017. Appearance Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Tapas Majumdar, Adv.Mr.Ashok Basu, Adv.The Court : Unnecessary time has been wasted over a matter with no merit whatsoever. Provisions of the Contract Act clearly inapplicable to the facts have been cited. The appellant is one of the co-owners of a property in respect whereof a development agreement was entered into and the developers entered into an agreement, on the strength of the authority conferred on the developers by the development agreement, with third parties for the sale of flats at the building proposed to be constructed in terms of the development agreement. The fiRs.respondent was one of such purchaseRs.The construction h...
State of West Bengal Vs. Bharat Vanijya Eastern Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN A.P.No.1087 of 2011 STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT.LTD.For the Petitioner : Mr.Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Ld. A.G., Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Ld. AOR., Mr.Subhabrata Dutta, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Heard On : 29.09.2016, 17.11.2016, 24.11.2016, 08.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 19.12.2016, 23.12.2016 Judgment On : 4th January, 2017 Goutam Chakravortti, Sr.Adv., Pradip Kr. Ghose, Sr.Adv., Dhruba Ghosh, Sr.Adv., Sarajit Mitra, Adv., Shayak Chakraborty, Adv.Soumen Sen, J.:- The employer assails the award in excess of Rs.15 crores inclusive of interest in respect of construction of Falkata Pundari Section of NH31(Coochbehar) a Two-Lane At-Grade Highway in the State of West Bengal. The respondent initially filed a suit in February, 2002 against the petitioner for a decree for Rs.20,72,36,567/-. After the settlement of issues and filing of evidence on affidavit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›