Court : Kolkata
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.85 of 2010 With A.P.O.No.111 of 2013 Arising out of C.S.No.16 of 2007 THE ASSAM COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.versus NUMAZAR DORAB MEHTA & ORS.For the Assam Co.LTD.: Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Surajit Nath Mitra, Senior Advocate Ashish Chakraborty, Advocate Sankarsan Sarkar, Advocate For Numazar Dorab Mehta & ORS.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat, Advocate Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Sourav Ghosh, Advocate Arnab Basu Mallick, Advocate : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Heard on : September 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24, 25 & 26, 2013. Judgment on : October 8, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. FACTS : Calcutta Zoroastrian Communitys Religious and Charity Fund and the Olpadwala Memorial Trust filed the suit through trustees being the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed, they were the owners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form No.J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri G.A.No.2121of 2013 APOT No.328 of 2013 C.S.No.202 of 2013 ASHA AUDIO Co.& ANR. versus OM PRAKASH SONIK And G.A.No.2149 of 2013 APOT No.331 of 2013 C.S.No.202 of 2013 THE INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHT SOCIETY LTD.versus ASHA AUDIO Co.& ORS.G.A.No.2306 of 2013 APOT No.363 of 2013 C.S.No.202 of 2013 HASAN KAMAAL versus ASHA AUDIO Co.& ANR. And G.A.No.2315 of 2013 APOT No.367 of 2013 C.S.No.202 of 2013 OM PRAKASH SONIK versus ASHA AUDIO Co.& ANR. For Asha Audio : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For Hasan Kamal : Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Amitava Ganguly, Advocate Ms.Nibedita Sarkar, Advocate For Om Prakash Souik : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Senior Advocate Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Suddhasatta Banerjee, Advocate Santosh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Jurisdiction Original Side G.A.No.583 of 2013 G.A.No.669 of 2013 C.S.56 of 2013 G.A.No.938 of 2013 C.S.87 of 2013 In the Matter of : HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.Plaintiff versus RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD..Defendant G.A.No.937 of 2013 C.S.90 of 2013 G.A.No.942 of 2013 C.S.92 of 2013 In the Matter of : RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.Plaintiff versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD..Defendant For the Hindustan Unilever : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.S.N.Mookerjee, Senior Advocate with Ms.Mousumi Bhattacharyya, Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Mr.A.Bansal, Ms.N.Jhunjhunwala, Advocates For the Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.: Mr.C.M.Lall, Advocate with Mr.S.Bose, Mr.P.Bose Ms.Nancy Ray, Advocates Heard on :06. 08.2013 & 7.08.2013 Judgment on :23. d September, 2013 I.P.Mukerji, J. Two companies are litigating against one another. One is Hindustan Unilever Ltd., in short Hindustan., the other is Reckitt Benckiser (India) LTD.in short Reckitt.Four advertiseme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.208 of 2013 W.P No.494 of 2008 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus KRISHNANANDA BANERJEE & ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.Arijit Chowdhury, Senior Advocate Mr.Aloke Banerjee, Advocate Respondent No.1 : Mr.Krishnananda Banerjee (In person) Heard on Judgment on : August 2, 2013. : August 13, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. FACTS : Respondent Krishnananda Banerjee was an officer of Reserve Bank of India. He was a Class-I Grade-A Officer and working as Assistant Manager in the Foreign Exchange Department. He was promoted as Assistant Manager (promotee) on ad hoc and temporary basis with effect from October 16, 2001. The Authority regularized such promotion with effect from November 8, 2001, effective from November 7, 2001. He claimed to have an unblemished service career. He complained of not getting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.50 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 C.P.No.513 of 2011 ICICI Bank LTD.versus DUNLOP INDIA LTD.& ORS.- AND A.P.O.No.65 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 KANTI COMMERCIALS (P) LTD.versus DUNLOP INDIA LTD.& ANR. - AND A.P.O.No.105 of 2013 C.P.No.233 of 2008 DUNLOP INDIA LTD.versus M/S.E.V.MATHAI & SONS. For Dunlop India LTD.: For SMIEFS Capital : Mkts. LTD.For Madura Coats LTD.Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Advocate Mr.Soumava Ghose, Advocate Mr.Ranjan Deb, Senior Advocate Mr.Rohitendra Deb, Advocate : Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For Century Textile Industries LTD.: Ms.Manju Bhutoria, Advocate Mr.R.N.Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.J.B.Panda, Advocate Mr.Rishav Dutta, Advocate For ICICI Bank LTD.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Advocate Mr.Siddhartha Chatterjee, Advocate For Kanti Commercial (P) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
FORM not J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURIDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: THE HONBLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE W.P. No.962 of 2010 Rananjoy Bhattacharya VS. Union of India & Ors. Advocates for the private Respondent No.8: Mr. Arindam Sinha Ms. Manika Kalra Mr. Abhishek Gupta Advocates for the State: Mr. S. Talukdar Mrs. Debjani Ray Mrs. Debjani Ghosh Advocates for the HPCL: Mr. Debajyoti Dutta Mr. Rakhsanda Qamar Judgment On:19. h March, 2013. ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:1. The controversy involved in this proceeding arises out of a selection process initiated by a notice published by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (HPCL) inviting applications for appointment of dealers in respect of various retail outlets for petroleum products in different parts of this State. The dispute in this proceeding relates to a location disclosed against serial No.21 in the list of sites disclosed in the advertisement. The location is described as Bhojerhat between KM stone 15-17 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.180 of 2012 C.S.No.299 of 2007 ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.versus EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr.Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate Ms.Suruchi Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Kuldeep Mullick, Advocate Mr.Pratik Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr.Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate Heard on : February 20, 25 and 26, 2013. Judgment on : March 8, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.BACKDROP : Uniworth Apparel Limited was a company registered in Maharashtra under the Companies Act, 1956. It had an industrial unit at Thane (Navi Mumbai) in the District of Maharashtra. The Uniworth availed credit facilities from ICICI Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.3302 of 2012 ITAT No.277 of 2012 M/S.BAGRI IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9, KOLKATA & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR DAS Date :16. h January, 2013. For Appellant For Respondent : Mr.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate : Mr.P.Dudhuria, Advocate The Court : The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: The assessee was owner of 2/5th share in a land situate at 14A, Burdwan Road, Kolkata. Naturally, there were co-owners owning the residuary the right in the land in question. The co-owners were the group companies. The case of the assessee is that the land in question or the interest of the assessee was agreed to be sold on 15th October, 1996 to 15 several buyeRs.Deeds of conveyance in favour of five buyers were executed on 15.1.1998. The balance 10 deeds of conveyance were executed on 26th May, 2006 and regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction GA 1191/2012 WITH CS 152/2012 GA 1598/2012 GA 1603/2012 In the matter of: HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Plaintiff/Petitioner Vs. CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (MAURITIUS) COMPANY & ORS. Defendants/Respondents For the Plaintiff For the Defendant No.1& 2 For the Defendant No.3 For the respondent No.4 For the respondents No.5 and 6 : Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jishnu Saha Mr. Ranjan Bachwat Mr. Aditya Gandia Mr. Sayan Roy Chaudhury, Advocates. : Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhartha Mitra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Moushumi Bhattacharya, Mr. S. Datta, Advocates : Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Prasad, Mr. Parth Basu, Advocates. : Mr. S.B. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Datta, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Debangshu Basak Mr. Sanjay Ginodia, Mr. Mayank Mishra, Mr. Ravi Kapur, Mr. Amal Gupta, Ms. Preeta Chaudhary, Advocates. Heard on :29. 06.12, 02....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by the Learned Trial Court refusing to pass any interim order as regards restoration of supply of electricity. Aggrieved by the order of refusal the petitioners have come up in appeal. The case of the writ petitioners briefly stated is as follows: The writ petitioner No.1 is a sick company and is engaged, inter alia, in manufacturing of forklift vehicle material, material handling equipment and such other business. They have 300 workers. Part of the factory premises is let out for shooting of TV serials etc. The consumption of electricity in the preceding 12 months from the date of incident was for an aggregate sum of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately. On 18th April, 2012 a surprise inspection was conducted at the factory of the petitioner No.1. During such inspection the petitioner No.1 was allegedly found to have been engaged in unauthorized use of electricity. Supply was disconnected at about 16.2...
Tag this Judgment!