Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-09-2015
OD-2 GA No.2733 of 2015 With AP No.370 of 2004 GA No.2734 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA -VersusMAHENDRA KUMAR JENA For the Petitioner: Mr.Anirban Ray, Adv.Mr.Rajat Dutta, Adv.MRS.Sanjukta Ray, Adv.For the Respondent: Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.P.C.Sen, Sr.Adv.Rajratna Sen, Adv.Jaydeb Ghorai, Adv.S.Banerjee, Adv.BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date: December 9, 2015. The Court : The two applications are for condonation of the delay in applying for restoration and for recalling the order of dismissal for default passed on July 2, 2015. In view of the sufficient cause shown for the marginal delay and the good grounds demonstrated for the petitioner not being represented on July 2, 2015, GA No.2733 of 2015 and GA No.2734 of 2015 are allowed by condoning the delay and restoring AP No.370 of 2004 to the file. Since the parties had earlier been put on notice, the petition for setting aside an arbitral ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-31-2015
W.P.No.1992 of 1995 W.P.No.1657 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Kesoram Industries LTD.versus E.S.I.Corporation & ORS.For the petitioner: Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Domingo Gomes, Advocate For the Respondent:- Mr.S.Moitra MRS.Keya Bhattacharyya , Advocates Judgement On: - 31st August, 2015 I.P.MUKERJI, J. Most intriguing questions arise in these two writ applications which were heard together. They concern the employees or workmen of Kesoram Industries Limited, at the relevant point of time. By his letter dated 5th September, 1995 the Deputy Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation told the writ petitioner that the milk allowance of Rs.2.25 per day that they were paying to each of their workmen was not to be counted as part of their wage. He also said that the wages that were being paid for work done by the workmen on holidays were to be treated as overtime and not included as a component of wage paid to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-14-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: The Honble Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti G.A.No.4026 of 2000 Award Case No.32 of 2000 Neycer India Limited versus GMB Ceramics Limited For the petitioners : Mr.Gautam Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ritabrata Mitra, Advocate Mr.P.Sinhav, Advocate Mr.Sumit Dhar, Advocate Mr.Indranil Karfa, Advocate For the respondent Nos.: Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate Mr.Pramit Kumar Roy, Sr.Advocate MRS.Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Shaunak Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Avirup Mondal, Advocate Heard on : 14.07.2015, 22.07.2015, 30.07.2015, 05.08.2015, 12.08.2015, 18.08.2015, 21.08.2015, 08.09.2015 Judgement on : 14.10.2015 Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.: 16.07.2015, 23.07.2015, 31.07.2015, 06.08.2015, 13.08.2015, 19.08.2015, 24.08.2015, 17.07.2015, 24.07.2015, 03.08.2015, 10.08.2015, 14.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 25.08.2015, 21.07.2015, 27.07.2015, 04.08.2015, 11.08.2015, 17.08.2015, 21.08.2015, 01.09.2015, Neycer India Limited, i.e., the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-16-2015
ORDER SHEET ITA230OF2005IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T. ASANSOL Versus KISHORE KUMAR PAUL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE MIR DARA SHEKO Date : 16th June, 2015. For appellant : Md.Nizamuddin,Advocate Mr.P.Dhodhoria,Advocate The Court : Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. Despite service of notice none appears on behalf of the respondentassessee. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal was admitted on two questions. The question no.1 is as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the Additional Conveyance allowance as an eligible exemption under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of circular no.701 dated 20.03.1995 and guideline framed by the CBDTF No.275/11/2001-IT(B) dated 1.02.2001 ?. Since there are typographical m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-04-2015
In The High Court At Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side APO119of 2008 WP2392of 2001 S.V.S. Marwari Hospital -Vs.State of West Bengal & ORS.Before : The Honble Chief Justice Manjula Chellur The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the appellant : Mr.Prasanta Kr. Banerji, Adv.For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Diptendu Majumder, Adv.Mr.Niranjan Ganguly, Adv.Mr.S.K. Ghose, Adv.Mr.Dipak Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.For the State : Mr.Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Rani Kr. Dubey, Adv.Heard On : 3rd December, 2014 & 14th January, 2015 Judgment On : 04/03/2015 Arijit Banerjee, J. (1) This matter is before us by reason of a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 15th December, 2011 passed in the couRs.of hearing an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th April, 2005 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P No.2392 of 2001. (2) By an order dated June 25, 1999 the Government of West Bengal had referred an industrial dispute between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-22-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT : DIPANKAR DATTA, J.W.P. No.550 of 2015 Chong Hsin Wong Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Subrata Kumar Basu, Advocate Mr. Siddhartha Basu, Advocate, Mr. R. L. Mitra, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. D.K. Paul, Advocate. Hearing concluded on : October 14, 2015 Judgment on December 22, 2015 1. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant in respect of flats 2, 3 and 4, East India Building, No.8, Madan Street, Kolkata 700 072 (hereafter the flats); that, by separate indentures executed by and between the petitioner and the Corporation, lease was granted in respect of the flats at varying monthly rental (the aggregate monthly rent being 3,700/-); that, all three leases were effective for 5 (five) years from November 1, 1992 and upon expiry thereof, the petitioner had opted for renewal; that, the Corporation kept putting off renewal of lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-04-2015
ORDER SHEET APO NO.118 OF2012CP NO.366 OF2011IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ROAD BUILDER (M) SDN BHD Versus TANTIA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 4th June, 2015. MR.UTPAL BOSE, SR.ADVOCATE, MR.MAINAK BOSE, Mr.U S. MENON, MR.ABHIRUP CHAKRABORTY,ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT MR.RANJAN BACHAWAT, SR.ADVOCATE, MS.IPSITA BANERJEE, MR.SUBHASISH SENGUPTA, MR.SANJAY KR.BAID, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2012 by which the learned Company Court disposed of the winding up petition by relegating the petitioning creditor to a suit subject to security being furnished by the company. To be precise, the order is as follows;- In view of my above findings, I am of the opinion that the company has been unable to disclose any bona fide defence to the claim of the petitioning creditor. However, using my discreti...
Tag this Judgment!