1
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-09-2011
1Order Sheet Serial No........ IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE In the matter of : G.A. No. 1245 of 2010 G.A. No. 348 of 2010 C.S. No.126 of 2007 SHRIDHAR ISSAR Vs BHARNOBARI TEA and; INDUSTRIES LTD.Before:The Hon'ble JusticeINDIRA BANERJEE Mr. Asish Chakravarti Mr. Mohit Gupta .......for the plaintiff. Mr. Amitesh Banerjee Mr. Reetabrata Mitra .......for the defendant. Date: 09.12.2011 JUDGMENT This application by Master's Summons dated 9 th April, 2010 has been taken out by the plaintiff under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules of this Court, for final judgment and decree against the defendant, for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,14,242/- together with further interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 1 st April, 2007 until payment and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff filed the suit being C.S. No.126 of 2007 against the defendant claiming inter alia a decree for Rs.17,14,242/-, interest and costs. 2 The plaintiff claims to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-01-2011
1 In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original SidePresent : The Hon'ble Justice J.N. Patel, Chief Justice And The Hon'ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti A.P.O.T. No.164 of 2010 W.P. 1508 of 2008 Sri Swadesh Ghosh vs. CESC Limited and; Ors. For the Appellant : Mr.Neguive Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Subir Sanyal, Advocate Mr. Somnath Bose Heard on : 23.11.2011Judgment on : 01.12.2011 J.N. Patel, C.J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1508 of 2008 and thereby dismissing the writ petition wherein the petitioner sought for quashing of the direction of the respondents to deposit 50% of the assessed amount as precondition and for filing of fresh appeal as envisaged under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and for other ancillary reliefs. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber goods from the factory premises 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-29-2011
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side)Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya AndThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti I.T.A. No.80 of 2003 ICI India Limited Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- IV, Kolkata. For the Appellant: Dr. Debi Prasad Pal, Mr. Somak Bose. For the Respondent: Mr. S. N. Dutta, Mrs. S. Chatterjee.Heard on: 20.09.2011.Judgment on: September 29, 2011.Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated 18th November, 2002 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.2180 (Cal) of 1995 and ITA No.1806 (Cal) of 1997 relating to the Assessment Year 1989-90 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 2 The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-21-2011
1 GA No. 3490 of 2007 GA No. 3637 of 2010 GA No. 643 of 2011 GA No. 2766 of 2011 CS No. 248 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MRIGAN MAITY AND OTHERS -Versus- DARIDRA BANDHAB BHANDAR AND ANOTHER For the Sate of West Bengal: Mr Anindya Kumar Mitra, Advocate General, Mr Supriyo Bose, Adv., Mr Anup Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Adv., Mr Paritosh Sinha, Adv. For the Picasona Health: Mr Jayanta Mitra, Sr Adv., Care Private Limited Mr Ranjan Bachawat, Adv., Mr Rajarshi Dutta, Adv., Mr Sudarsan Roy, Adv. . For the Defendant No. 2: Mr Indrajit Sarkar, Adv., Mr A.N. Ganguly, Adv. For persons claiming to be: Mr Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Sr Adv., members of the Defendant Mr Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv., No. 1 Mr Dipendra Nath Chunder, Adv. For the Applicant in : Mr Joy Saha, Adv. GA No. 2766 of 2011Hearing concluded on: September 15, 2011. 2BEFOREThe Hon'ble JusticeSANJIB BANERJEEDate: September 21, 2011. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : - Several years after the horse has bolte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-24-2011
1. In course of hearing of an application filed in connection with an appeal of 2003 arising out of probate jurisdiction, we decided to hear out the appeal itself instead of disposing of the interlocutory application keeping the appeal pending. 2. Consequently, the learned Counsel for the parties made their submission only on the merit of the appeal. 3. This appeal is at the instance of an Executor and is directed against an order dated 8th October, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship revoked the grant of probate earlier made by holding that this High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of probate in respect of the Will left by the deceased in this case. 4. Being dissatisfied, the Executor has come up with the present appeal. 5. There is no dispute that the deceased was a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law and died on January 18, 1999 at Mumbai leaving his alleged last Will and Testament dated 9th Novem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-15-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of a judgment-debtor and is directed against order dated April 06, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship appointed a Receiver in respect of a property described in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the tabular statement of the application for execution which is undisputedly situated beyond the territorial limit of this Court. 2. The decree was one for payment of money and in execution of the decree, the decree-holder sought to attach and sell an immoveable property belonging to the appellant situated beyond the territorial limits of this Court. The only question raised by the appellant in this appeal is that in view of Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned executing Court acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as, this Court has no jurisdiction to attach or sell an immoveable property situated beyond its territorial limit as an Executing Court. 3. Mr. Mitra, the learned Senior Advocate appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-15-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of a judgment-debtor and is directed against order dated April 06, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship appointed a Receiver in respect of a property described in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the tabular statement of the application for execution which is undisputedly situated beyond the territorial limit of this Court. 2. The decree was one for payment of money and in execution of the decree, the decree-holder sought to attach and sell an immoveable property belonging to the appellant situated beyond the territorial limits of this Court. 3. The only question raised by the appellant in this appeal is that in view of Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned executing Court acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as, this Court has no jurisdiction to attach or sell an immoveable property situated beyond its territorial limit as an Executing Court. 4. Mr. Mitra, the learned Senior Advocate a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-20-2011
1. The answers to the common questions that have arisen in these three matters may decide the fate of a clutch of matters where arbitral awards have been put into execution before this court. 2. Though every matter should be dealt with on its merits, the larger picture cannot be lost sight of. These three execution applications cannot be seen in isolation. The decree-holder in each case is a finance company. Two of the awards have been passed by the same arbitrator. 3. Over the last few months there has been a proliferation of execution proceedings filed by finance companies for implementation of arbitral awards. In most cases the finance company would have granted facilities for the acquisition of a vehicle or an agricultural equipment or an industrial implement. Generally, the agreements would be in the nature of hire-purchase transactions where monthly rentals would be payable over a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
Decided on : Feb-14-2011
1. A vital and interesting question has cropped up before us in the instant tribunal application as to the competence of the Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Tribunal Act) under Article 323(B) of the Constitution of India to deal, entertain and/or set aside the orders, decrees and judgments passed by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter under the Specified Act as defined under section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act 1997. 2. Initially when the said Tenancy Tribunal Act was promulgated it was made applicable in respect of five Acts. Those are the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fisherman Act 1975 and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act 1979. By an amendment Act, the said West Bengal La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-25-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of an executor in a proceeding for grant of Probate where the Probate has already been granted and is directed against an order dated 10th December, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of two applications, one filed by the executor for direction under Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, and the other, filed by the legatees for removal of the executor. 2. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge was of the view that although the conduct of the executor would warrant his immediate removal, a chance should be given to the executor to carry out the mandate of the testator in respect of the particular item of the bequest within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, and in default, liberty was given to the grandson/legatee of the testator to seek the immediate removal of the executor. The learned Single Judge directed the executor to give effect to that part of the beques...
Tag this Judgment!