Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE HARISH TANDON W.P.253 OF2017ARUNDHUTI MONDAL -VSKOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Mr.Soumya Majumdar, Mr.Victor Chatterjee..for the Petitioner. C.A.V.On: 18.09.2017 Mr.Alok Ghosh, Mr.Arijit Dey..for KMC Judgment On: 22.09.2017 The Court: The Petitioner has challenged provisional gradation list dated March 22, 2017 on mere apprehension and she can be thrown out of zone of consideration for promotional post even if it is for reserved category. The challenge is basically thrown on the plea that there should be a separate gradation list for a general category, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe category and the other reserved categories and all such reserved category candidate should not be put into a single gradation list. The facts emanate from the respective pleadings of the parties are that an advertisement was made in the year 2012 by the Municipal Service Commission to fill up 10 v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side WP830of 2013 Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat -Vs.Additional Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata & ORS.Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the petitioner : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.For the respondents : Mr.Somnath Ganguli, Adv.Ms.Manasi Mukherjee, Adv.Heard On : 12.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 09.06.2015, 23.06.2015 21.07.2015, 23.07.2015, 16.11.2015, 02.11.2016 12.01.2017, 16.01.2017, 30.01.2017. 06.02.2017 CAV On : 08.02.2017 Judgment On : 21.09.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) An order dated 11 June, 2013 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Port).Kolkata being the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as the respondent) on an adjudication proceeding ordering confiscation of a vehicle imported by the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay differential duty amounting to Rs.25,91,844/- and penalty of equal amount and further penalty of Rs.2 lacs imposed on the petitioner, is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.1951 of 2017 C.S.No.2 of 2017 LINDSAY INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.& ORS.versus LAXMI NIWAS MITTAL & ORS.For the Plaintiff : Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv., Mr.Jay Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ravi Kapur, Adv., Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv., Mr.S.R.Kakrania, Adv., Mr.Sanjeeb Seni, Adv.MRS.Priyanka Prasad, Adv., Mr.Arkadeb Biswas, Adv.For the Defendant No.1 : Mr.P.Chidambaram, Sr.Adv., Mr.Siddhartha Datta, Adv., Mr.Bodhisatta Biswas, Adv., Ms.Surabhi Binani, Adv.Hearing Concluded On : 04.09.2017 Judgment On : 18th September, 2017 Soumen Sen, J.:- The defendant No.1 is the applicant. This is an application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and for dismissal of suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant no.1. The contention of the defendant no.1 is that according to the plaintiffs there was a pre-incorporation agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
-1IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE G.A. No.113 of 2016 In C.S. No.48 of 2013 Hem Prakash Surana ... Plaintiff -VersusAbhay Singh Surana & Ors. ... Defendants/ Proforma-Defendant BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI August 25, 2017. Mr. Anirban Roy, Adv. Mr. Soumabho Ghosh, Adv. for the plaintiff Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv. Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv. for the defendant no.1 Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv. for the defendant no.2 Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv. for the defendant no.4 Mr.Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Sunny Nandy, Adv. for proforma-defendant no.5 -2- The Court : This G.A. No.113 of 2016 has been filed by the added defendant no.4 praying for framing an issue with regard to maintainability of the suit as referred to in paragraph 35 of the said petition so that the same can be decided as a preliminary issue. Paragraph 35 is quoted below : Your petitioner thus submits that the issue whether the suit filed is maintainable at the instance of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET WP330of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHYAM KANHAIYA JAISWAL & ANR. Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 18th July, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Syed E. Huda, Adv.for the petitioneRs.Mr.Debrup Bhattacharjee, Adv.Mr.P.K.Tulsyan, Adv.for the respondent no.4. Mr.N.C.Bihani, Adv.Ms.S.Chongdar, Adv.for the KMC. The Court : The instant writ petition was filed alleging that despite issuance of notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Corporation authorities were not taking any steps to initiate a proceeding against the private respondents. At the time of moving the writ petition it was brought to the notice of the Court that the delegatee of the Municipal Commissioner passed an order dated 3rd March, 2016 in a proceeding under Section unauthorised 400 of the construction said Act directing upon payment of the retention necessary of retention charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
W.P.No.1069 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Kolkata & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate Mr.Somak Basu, Advocate For the Respondents : Md.Nizamuddin, Advocate Hearing concluded on : March 17, 2017 Judgment on : May 3, 2017 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The petitioners challenges the vires of clause (i) of explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in its prospective and retrospective operation. Learner Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that, such clause was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001. It provides that, the net profit as shown in the Profit and Loss Account for the relevant previous year must be increased by amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset. Learned Senior Advocate for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP250of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MANIMALA DASGUPTA Versus THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 28th April, 2017. Mr.Moloy Kumar Basu,Sr.Advocate Mr.Durga Prasad Dutta,Advocate Mr.Souvik Sen,Advocate Ms.Aditi Dutta,Advocate appeaRs.appeaRs.appeaRs.appeaRs.Mr.Alak Kr. Ghosh,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee,Advocate appeaRs.Mr.Dilip Chatterjee,Advocate appeaRs.The Court :- The challenge is made to an order of assessment passed by the Hearing Officer revising the annual valuation of the building on the basis of the rental value pertaining to a mobile tower affixed on the roof thereof. The challenge appears to have been founded more on a legal aspect than on the factual matrix. This Court, therefore, permitted the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties to address this Court on the legal points involved in the writ petition without waiting for the affidavits to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form No.J(2) GA NO.3855 OF2015WITH ITAT NO.178 OF2015IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME-TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE SUCCESS TOURS AND TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR, Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4) KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date :23. d March, 2017. MR.SUBASH AGARWAL, MR.BRIJESH KR.SINGH, MR.R.BHARADAJ, ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS MR.S.B.SARAF, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS Aniruddha Bose. J.:1. The assessee is an incorporated company and this appeal relates to its assessment in the year 2008-09. It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee before us that the Assessment Year 2008-2009 was its first year of assessment. For the relevant previous year, according to the Assessee, it had no income. In that year, share capital of Rs.24,68,000/- was infused in the assessee company at a premium of Rs.5,68,32,000/-, the latter sum being reflected in the balance sheet under the head reserves and surplus.. A copy of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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!Court : Kolkata
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!