Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-22-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen CSOS No.1 of 2012 OM PRAKASH MOHTA & ORS. VS. RAJ KUMAR DAGA & ORS. For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Asish Mukherjee. For the respondents : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Chakraborty (Jr.), Ms. Soma Bera. Heard on :08.08.2014, 11.08.2014, 07.11.2014, 14.11.2014, 21.11.2014, 01.12.2014, 05.12.2014, 12.12.2014. Judgment on :22. d December, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The plaintiffs and the defendants have a common ancestry from Late Bulakidasji Mohta. On 22nd July, 1950, Late Srikunwar Mohta created a charitable trust in the name and style of Mohta Charitable Trust appointing Bhagirathji Mohta since deceased and Om Prakash Mohta since deceased as the first trustees. During her lifetime, Srikunwar Mohta executed a supplementary deed of trust amending some of the provisions of the original trust deed dated 1st May, 1961. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-16-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present : THE HONBLE JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.G.A.No.3059 of 2014 T.S.No.18 of 2012 In the goods of; Sajani Devi Bhartia, deceased Jagmohan Kejriwal & ORS.versus Ashrant Bhartia & Anr. For the plaintiffs:- Mr.Dhruba Ghosh; Adv.Mr.Anirban Roy; Adv.Mr.C.M.Ghorawat; Adv.Mr.Souvik Kanti Chakraborty; Adv.For the defendants:- Mr.S,N, Mitra; senior Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Choudhuri; Adv.Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherhee; Adv.Mr.Sanjiv Trivedi; Adv.Mr.Ravitej Chilumari; Adv.Heard On:- 05.12.2014 Judgement On:- 16.12.2014 I.P.MUKERJI, J. A short question arises for consideration in this application. The plaintiff, in a contested testamentary suit, to obtain probate of the alleged last Will and Testament of Sajani Devi Bhartia, wants an order from this court that the two attesting witnesses to the Will be examined on commission. These two attesting witnesses are: (a) Ajay Bhargava, Partner, Khaitan & Co., Advocates, 1105 Ashoka Estate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S. No.799 of 1979 Hindusthan Motors Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. For the Plaintiff : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Jeevan Ballav Panda, Advocate Rishav Dutta, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Advocate S.K. Das, Advocate Abhijit Gangopadhyay, Advocate Sarathi Dasgupta, Advocate Hearing concluded on : July 03, 2014 Judgment on : September 25, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.The suit is for recovery of money on account of damages suffered by the plaintiff in respect of the incidents claimed to be covered under policies of insurance issued by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. There are 6 defendants in the suit. The claim of the plaintiff is against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff does not seek to any relief against the other defendants. The plaintiff claims to be a manufacturer of motor vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.82 of 1986 E.O.S.No.6 of 1987 Tara Properties PVT.LTD.versus ARCL Organics LTD.For the Plaintiff : Mr.Saugata Chatterjee, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Pradip Kr. Dutta, Sr.Advocate Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate Mr.Sandip Kr. Dutta, Advocate Ms.Shyanti Dutta, Advocate Hearing concluded on : July 10, 2014 Judgment on : September 25, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- Two suits between the same parties are taken up together for hearing. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No.1583 of 1981. The plaintiff also filed a suit claiming money decree on account of mesne-profits being Suit No.82 of 1986 before this Court. The suit being Title Suit No.1583 of 1981 was transferred to this Honble Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and was renumbered as EOS No.6 of 1987. In the fiRs.suit being E.O.S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-19-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side/ Appellate Side Present: The Honble Justice Soumitra Pal. W.P.No.11 of 2013 G.A.No.3503 of 2013 Indus Towers Limited & Ors Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.No.420 of 2013 G.A.No.807 of 2014 Chennai Network Infrastructure LTD.& ORS.Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. With W.P.No.339 of 2014 Viom Net Works Limited & Anr. Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.With W.P.No.388 of 2014 Dishnet Wireless Limited & ORS.Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.No.15748 (W) of 2014 Indus Towers Limited & ORS.Versus Kanchrapara Municipality & ORS.W.P.No.11 of 2013 For the Petitioners : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate, Atish Ghosh, Arindam Chandra, Souvik Ghosh. For the K.M.C : Mr.Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Mr.S.Chowdhury, Mrs.S.Ghosh. W.P.No.420 of 2013 For the petitioners : Mr.L.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr.S.Banerjee, Mr.Chayan Gupta, Mr.D.Bhattacharyay, Ms.N.D.Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-14-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak C.S.No.128 of 1982 G.A.No.3772 of 2007 Smt. Shakuntala Pandiya & ORS.versus Russel Estate Corporation & ORS.For the Plaintiff s : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Advocate Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Ashis Mukherjee, Advocate For the Defendant No.1 : Mr.P.K.Das, Sr.Advocate Ms.Nilakshi Dutta, Advocate Heard on : July 04, 2014 Judgment on : August 14, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- One Sakhir Chand Dhawan filed the instant suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale entered into by him with the Defendant No.1 in respect of two apartments in premises No.7/1, Russel Street, Kolkata- 700071. Apparently Sakhir Chand Dhawan settled with the Defendant No.1. Seven persons claiming to be agreement holders in respect of different flats at the said premises applied for transposition and/or addition of party to the suit in the category of plaintiffs, as the case of the individu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.158 of 2008 Indian Chain Private Limited. versus Ajit Nain & Anr. For the Plaintiff : Mr.Pradip Kumar Jewrajka. For the Defendants : Mr.Jaydeb Ghorai. Heard on : 07.06.2013, 17.06.2013, 03.07.2013, 10.07.2013, 22.07.2013, 29.07.2013, 07.08.2013, 14.08.2013, 19.08.2013, 21.08.2013, 18.09.2013, 08.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 24.01.2014, 27.01.2014, 28.01.2014, 11.03.2014, 02.05.2014(C.A.V) Judgment on : 28th July, 2014 Soumen Sen, J:- The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of money lent and advanced and for enforcement of mortgage. The case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is summarized below. On or about 26th September, 1994, the plaintiff had lent and advanced a sum of Rs.20 lacs to Ajit Nain, defendant no.1, on terms of an agreement that the said sum would be repaid by him in five monthly installments of Rs.4 lacs each commencing from January 1995 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side/Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Soumitra Pal. W.P.14557 (W) of 2012 Ghanashyam Das Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.934 (W) of 2014 Sr.Dibyendu Dhar Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.3583 (W) of 2014 M/S.K.C.Mookerjee & Sons and ORS.Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.6960(W) of 2014 Ajit Kumar Mohalanobis and Anr. Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.8951 (W) of 2014 Smt. Rita Dey Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.7871 (W) of 2014 Smt. Shila Das Versus Howrah Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P.3508 (W) of 2014 Anima Rani Dey Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ORS.With W.P No.251 of 2014 Eskag Sanjeevani PVT.LTD.& Anr. Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.W.P.14557 (W) of 2012 For the Petitioner For the K.M.C For the respondent no.6. : Mr.Ajay Dutta, Mr.Naren Gh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-23-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT No.19 of 2013 GA No.188 of 2013 COMMISSIOINER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-IV Versus M/S.ANDAMAN SEA FOOD PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 23rd July, 2014. For Appellant : For Respondent : Mr.S.N. Dutta, Advocate Mr.R.K. Murarka, Advocate with Mrs.S.Roy Chowdhury, Advocate The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 19th June, 2012 by which the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal agreeing with the views of the CIT (A) dismissed an appeal preferred by the revenue. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the revenue has come up in appeal. The facts and circumstances, briefly stated, are as follows: During the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee paid consultancy charges amounting to a sum of Rs.37,97,246/- on 27th March, 2008 and a sum of Rs.2,62,25,400/- was credited to the account o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-24-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.830 of 2012 SETHI CONSTRUCTIONS -VERSUS- KOLKATA WEST INTERNATIONAL CITY PRIVATE LIMITED For the Petitioner: Mr Ratnanko Banerji, Sr Adv., Mr Reetobrata Mitra, Adv., Mr Dipayan Chowdhury, Adv., Mr Suvradal Chowdhury, Adv., Mr Soumya Bhattacharjee, Adv., Ms Priyanka Chowdhury, Adv., Mr Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.For the Respondent: Mr Ranjan Bachawat, Sr Adv., Mr Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv., Mr Arindam Guha, Adv., Mr S. Roychowdhury, Adv.Hearing concluded on: June 19, 2014. BEFORE SANJIB BANERJEE, Judge Date: June 24, 2014. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : In the respondent resisting the constitution of the arbitral tribunal as invited by the petitioner, several fundamental issues have been raised, some going to the cutting-edge of arbitration law. The respondent insists that the present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable in view of both the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!