Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-09-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.6 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BANWARILAL SUTODIYA & ORS.Versus TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 9th June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sanjib Kr. Mal, Adv.Mr.Atanu Raichaudhuri, Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.Ms.Radhika Singh, Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Adv.Ms.S.Nandy, Adv.The Court: The Senior Master appears to have passed a peremptory direction for disclosure of documents. Although the defendant no.1 has complied with the said direction but the plaintiff has failed to disclose the documents following which by an order dated 11th march, 2014 the learned Senior Master has declined to extend the time. In view of the peremptory nature of the order passed by him after he was permitted to do so by this Court in terms of the order dated 14th February, 2014, the plaintiff had conspicuously remain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-09-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.122 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRABHU DAYAL SUTODIYA Versus SHRI RAM TEA COMPANY(P) LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 9th June, 2014. Appearance: Pramit Roy, Adv.Ms.Lopita Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.Ms.Radhika Singh, Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Adv.Ms.S.Nandy, Adv.The Court: The Senior Master appears to have passed a peremptory direction for disclosure of documents. Although the defendant no.2 has complied with the said direction but the plaintiff has failed to disclose the documents following which by an order dated 11th march, 2014 the learned Senior Master has declined to extend the time. In view of the peremptory nature of the order passed by him after he was permitted to do so by this Court in terms of the order dated 14th February, 2014, the plaintiff had conspicuously remained silent in not bringing to the notice o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-22-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2162 of 2014 C.S.No.245 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BRIJ GOPAL MUNDHARA Versus G.B.PRODUCTS & ORS.Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendants/Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 22nd July, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Sayantan Bose & Mr.Prithvi Raj Sinha, Adversus For Defendant Nos.1&3 : Mr.Soumya Chowdhury with Mr.Sunil Singhania, Adversus For Defendant Nos.2,4 & 5 : Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Adv.This is an action under the Designs Act, 2000. Section 11 of the Act provides that when the design is registered, the proprietor of the design shall have copyright for ten yeaRs.Section 22 thereof describes unlawful use of copyright in a design as piracy. The plaintiff is the manufacturer and seller of childrens wear. Pictures of those dresses are shown in Annexure B at page 25 of the petition. According to the plaintiff, these dresses are novel in terms of shape, configur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-19-2014
ORDER SHEET W.P.No.603 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VAMSHI RUBBER LTD.Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BEHALA CHARGE & ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 19th August, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Piyal Gupta, Adv.For Respondents : Mr.P.Dudharia, Adv.Inter-state sale is involved in this case. The petitioner is the seller to a buyer outside West Bengal. For non-production of C form, adjudication, appellate and revisional orders have been passed against them, as stated in the prayer portion of the writ petition. The writ petitioners case now is that they have been able to collect further C forMs.If those C forms are allowed to be produced by them before the Sales Tax authorities, it is expected that favourable orders for the petitioner would be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cites an un-reported decision of Harish Tandon, J. made on 29th January, 2014 in W.P.No.984 of 2013 [...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.787 of 2014 Sr.JAWAHAR SINGH Versus THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.With W.P.No.788 of 2014 Sr.JAWAHAR SINGH Versus THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE For the petitioner : Mr.Debajyoti Basu, Adv.Mr.Suvadip Bhattacharjee, Adv.For the respondents: Mr.Basudeb Mukherjee, Adv.Heard on: 21st August, 2014. Judgment on: 25th August, 2014. INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J. : A common order is being passed in respect of both the writ applications as noted in the previous order dated 21st August, 2014 in W.P.No.788 of 2013. The present petitioner who is the defaulting borrower has prayed for writ of mandamus to cancel the demand notices, possession notices and also to rescind the proposed e-auction sale notice as appeared in the newspapeRs.The subject matter of writ petition No.787 of 2014 is the ground floor along with the car parking space of a multistoried building and in W.P.No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Appeals are filed by the Revenue against respective three Orders-in-Appeal dated 29.03.10, 28.01.10 and 22.03.10, all passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, involving a common issue. Hence, all these Appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The facts common in all these Appeals, relate to determination of assessable value of iron-ore fines exported by the Appellants. The Department assessed the respective shipping bills on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Undisputedly, the period involved in all these three Appeals, were after 13.06.2008, where the export duty of iron-ore fines has been charged on ad valorem rate basis. The Assessment Orders were challenged by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the arguments/grounds stated in the Appeal held that the said iron-ore fines be assessed to duty on the transaction value arrived at on the Dry Weight per Metric Ton (DMT) basis and not on Wet Weigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/364/2010 dated 04.01.2011. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent had filed a shipping bill for export of 19500 WMT(Wet Metric Tonne)/17,745 DMT (Dry Metric Tonne) of iron-ore fines, declaring its assessable value @US $108 per DMT. The Department assessed the goods by enhancing its value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT and also the value was determined on the basis of WMT instead of DMT. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had directed the assessment on DMT basis and allowed the appeal against the enhancement of value from US $108 per MT to US $117 per MT. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned Order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided two issues: (i). Whether the export goods be assessed to duty on WMT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-06-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.345 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE STANDARD SHOE SOLE AND MOULD (INDIA) LIMITED Versus IDBI BANK LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 6th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.The Court : The defendant did not file the written statement within the extended period as granted to the defendant by the order dated 25th February, 2014. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the written statement has been made ready on 25th April, 2014 and a copy whereof has been served upon the plaintiff. Learned counsel seeks leave for extension of time to file written statement. In view of the failure on the part of the defendant bank comply with the order dated 25th February, 2014, the suit could not be heard. For the inconvenience caused to this Court and to the plaintiff, the defendant bank is directed to pay cost of 200 GMs to the State Legal Aid Services in couRs.of this week. The said amount sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-16-2014
ORDER SHEET GA15312014 APOT2242014 CS1082014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (INDIA) PVT LTD Versus AMRIT IMPEX PVT LTD & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 16th May, 2014. Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Mr.Sunil Singhania, Advocate Mr.Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Rupak Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : Today, on the last day before the summer vacation, we are occupied with a novel case where we find a nice way of defrauding the creditor. The appellant before us was a carrier recommended by the buyer being the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 sold the goods to the respondent no.2 and handed over the consignment to the appellant at the instance of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 would say, they did not receive the goods. Hence, money is not payable. The appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-03-2014
ORDER SHEET CS No.80 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EDEN REALTY VENTURES PVT.LTD.Versus EDEN INFRAPROJECTS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 3rd June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sourya Sadhan Bose, Adv.The Court : This suit has appeared as an Undefended Suit in view of the failure on the part of the defendant to enter appearance in spite of service of the Writ of Summons. However, when this suit was called, Mr.S.S.Bose, learned counsel, appears and submits that the defendant has engaged M/S.Khaitan & Co.to contest this proceeding and some time may be given to the defendant to enter appearance and file the written statement. Mr.S.N.Mitra, learned senior counsel, submits that under Chapter 8 Rule 17 of the High Court, Original Side Rules the Department can only accept appearance without leave at any time before the suit is set down in the warning list of Undefended Suits. However, an appearance ...
Tag this Judgment!