Kolkata Court March 2017 Judgments
Vs. India Steam Laundry(P) Ltd.Defendant/Re
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE CASE No.CA/563 of 2013 PRASANTA KUMAR MITRA AND ORS. Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appeallant Versus INDIA STEAM LAUNDRY(P) LTD. Defendant/Respondent For Petitioner : For Respondent : Judgement Date :22. 03/2017 BEFORE : Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE In the High Court At Calcutta Original Jurisdiction Original Side CA563of 2013 With CP611of 1988 CC43of 2014 Prasanta Kumar Mitra & Ors. -Vs. India Steam Laundry (P) Ltd. & Ors. Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the Petitioners : Mr. S. B. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.C. Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Ratan Sen, Adv. Mr. Domigo Gomes, Adv. Mr. Somitra Dutta, Adv. Mrs. Roopa Mitra, Adv. For the respondent Nos. : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv. 13 &14 For the respondent nos. : Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv. 15, 16, & 17 Mr. Subhojit Saha, Adv. Heard On :23. 08.2016, 10.11.2016, 17.11.2016, 30.11.2016, 03.01.2017, 25.01.2017 CAV On :14. 02.2017 Judgment On :22. 03.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) Company Petition No.611 o...
Tag this Judgment!Sachchidananda Banerjee Vs. Moly Gupta and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Original Side Present : THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER AND THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE SANKAR ACHARYYA APD No.1 of 2015 with C.S.No.643 of 1990 SACHCHIDANANDA BANERJEE -Vs.MOLY GUPTA & OTHERS For the appellant : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Nirmalya Ray, Adv.For the respondents : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Heard on : 7th December, 2016 Judgment on : 21.03.2017 Reetabrata Mitra, Adv.R.Ghosh, Adv.M.A.Jabbar, Adv.N.Khanjoy, Adv.The Court : Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 2nd December, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment) passed by Honble Single Judge in C.S.No.643 of 1990, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal. Plaintiff/appellant filed the suit against Karuna Gupta and her son Samir Kumar Gupta as defendants Nos.1 and 2 respectively for specific performance of contract by the said Karuna Gupta on the basis of a written agreement dated, August 13, 1988 between...
Tag this Judgment!Ashim Guha Thakurta and Ors. Vs. Benoy Kumar Chatterjee and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
GA No.1020 of 2015 CS No.943 of 1982 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ASHIM GUHA THAKURTA & ORS.-VersusBENOY KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Arnab Sardar, Adv.Ms.Noelle Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv...for the petitioner. Ms.Manju Agarwal, Adv.Mr.Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.Mr.Debasish Kundu, Adv.Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv...for the plaintiff. Mr.Amar Nath Ganguli, Adv.Mr.Gautam Chakraborty, Adv...for the Jt. Administrator. Mr.Sudarshan Roy, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 20th March, 2017. The Court : The applicant is a purchaser of an immovable property mortgaged with United Bank of India by Hengers (India) PVT.LTD.United Bank of India appears to have filed two suits for recovery of debts due to bank from Hengers (India) PVT.LTD.The fiRs.suit being suit No.159 of 1981 was instituted in this Court against Hengers (India) PVT.LTD.and its directors for recovery of debts movable assets. along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee Vs. Shree Rani Sati Jute Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2017
OD-21 ORDER SHEET EC71of 2004 GA204of 2017 GA2295of 2016 With GA486of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE VERSUS SHREE RANI SATI JUTE PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 17th March, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Ms.Monika Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Arnab Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Puspendu Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Surjodipta Seth, Adv.Mr.Rapayan Deb, Adv.Mr.S.S.Bhutoria, Adv.The Court:- The applicants are 119 in number. The applicants resist the execution of the decree passed against Rani Sati Jute Mills. The principal defence taken to resist the execution application is that the applicants are bharatiyas under 13/14 thika tenants. The applicants never dispute that the decree-holder has become the owner of the property in question by virtue of a Court sale conducted in the year 1895 along with the structures and they were inducted as tenants in respect of the property by 13/14 persons whom they described as thika tena...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Singh Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporationand Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2017
ORDER SHEET WP1332017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RABINDRA SINGH Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 17th March, 2017. Appearance : Mr.A.K.Banerjee, Mr.R.Munsi, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.Mainak Bose, Mrs.Heera Jain, Advs., for the private respondent. Mr.Alak Kumar Ghosh, Mr.Gopal Chandra Das, Mr.Debangshu Mondal, Advs., for the KMC. Mr.Manoj Malhotra, Adv., for the State. The Court : The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for mandamus upon the Corporation Authorities to demolish the G+4 storied construction at premises B/42/H/18, Ekbalpore Lane, Kolkata 700 023 allegedly constructed by the private respondents. The facts pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner is one of the owners of the structure previously constructed at the said premises and such right is inherited by him from her grandmother who was a recorded thika tenant in respect thereof. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Jasoda Nandan Dutt and Ors. Vs. Bidhan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Present: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER & THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY A.P.D.NO.200 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 JASODA NANDAN DUTT & ORS.-Vs.BIDHAN NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ORS.A.P.D.No.425 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 BHASKAR DUTT -Vs.BIDHAN NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Appellants of A.P.D.No.200 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 Sr.Adv., Banerjee, : Mr.Ratanko Banerjee, MRS.Lopita Ms.Anamika Banerjee, Mr.Kuldeep Mallik, Ms.Amrita Pandey, Ms.S.Sharma. Adv., For the Respondents of A.P.D.No.200 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 : Mr.Pramit Kr. Ray, Sr.Mr.Arik Banerjee, Mr.Avirup Mondal, Mr.S.Sen. For the Appellants of A.P.D.No.425 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 Adv., : Mr.Pradip Dutta, Sr.Mr.Ritzu Ghosal, Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Ms.S.Purokayastha. For the Respondent No.3 to 9 of A.P.D.No.425 of 2015 With C.S.No.99 of 1997 Sr.Adv., Banerjee, MRS.Lopita Ms.Anamika Banerjee, Adv., : Mr.Ratanko Banerjee, ...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Engineering Co. (India) Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Howrah Zilla ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2017
OD-3 ORDER SHEET AP583of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction G.D.ENGINEERING Co.(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS HOWRAH ZILLA PARISHAD & ANR. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 16th March, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.Amritam Mondal, Adv.Mr.Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.Mrs.Manjuli Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Amitava Ghosh, Adv.The Court:- This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator based on a noting purported to have been made by the then executive engineer on the letter dated 1st November, 2013 of the petitioner seeking extension of the time to complete the work. There is no dispute that the work order does not contain any arbitration clause. The respondent no.1 is a juristic entity. The executive engineer is an appointee from the State Government. The said executive engineer was on deputation. The terms and conditions of the tender are all settled by the Zilla Parishad. No one has any right to alter ...
Tag this Judgment!Amiyo Busan Das Vs. United Bank of India and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2017
ORDER SHEET WP1050of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMIYO BUSAN DAS Versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 16th March, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv.Mr.Sayak Chakraborti, Adv.Mr.Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.Mr.S.N.Majumder, Adv.The Court : A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on fraudulently withdrawal of Rs.23,000/from the savings bank account of one Mrinal Kanti Ghosh through a withdrawal slip written by him and put in a forged signature of the account holder. Subsequently, the passbook of the said savings bank account was traced from a box containing the other passbooks ready for delivery to the respective account holders along with two more withdrawal slips both for Rs.23,000/- for the said savings bank account written and signed by him which raised a strong probability that these withdrawal slips were made with an effort to withdraw the further amount f...
Tag this Judgment!Dudley and Brother Vs. L.I.C. of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2017
ORDER SHEET WP24552003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DUDLEY & BROTHER Versus L.I.C.OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 16th March, 2017. Mrs.Manju Agarwal, Ms.Anju Manot, Mr.Ram Chandra Agarwal, Mr.Bajrang Manot, Advs., for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Kumar Kundu, Mr.A.Basu, Advs., for the respondent. The Court : The present writ petition was filed at a point of time when the proceeding under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 did not mature. The challenge is thrown to the notice issued under Section 4 of the said Act by the Estate Officer forming an opinion that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and satisfies the definition of the unauthorised occupation under Section 2(g) of the said Act. The case made out in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant at a point of time when the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Nain Vs. Bengal Silver Spring Projects Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad CS70of 2007 GA1619of 2007 GA3797of 2007 GA4036of 2008 GA1513of 2014 GA2911of 2016 GA3403of 2016 Ajit Nain Versus Bengal Silver Spring Projects LTD.& Anr. For the Plaintiff : Mr.P.C.Sen, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Joydeb Ghorai, Adv.Mr.Dilip Kr. Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Saugata Benerjee, Adv.For the Defendant No.1 : Mr.Swarendu Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv.For the Defendant No.3 : Mr.Pramit Kr. Roy, Sr.Adv.Ms.Saheli Sen, Adv.Heard on : 21.02.2017 C.A.V.on : 21.02.2017 Judgment on : 15.03.2017 GA1513of 2014 Defendant No.1 has prayed for rejection of the plaint filed in CS No.70 of 2007 under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. According to the defendant No.1/petitioner averment in paragraph 12 of the amended plaint reveals that the subject matter of the suit is immovable property ad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »