Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Dipankar Datta A.P. No.395 of 2010 Vinod Kumar Dugar vs. Bijoy Kumar Loyalka & anr. with A.P. No.396 of 2010 Jagat Singh Dugar vs. Bijoy Kumar Loyalka & anr. For the petitioner : Mr. Moloy Ghosh, in A.P. 395/2010 Ms. Sumana Sinha Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, For the petitioner : Mr. S. N. Mukherjee in A.P. 395/2010 Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee Mr. R. N. Ghose Ms. Sayani Mondal For the respondent : Mr. Pratap Chatterjee no.1 in A.P. 395/2010 Mr. Ranjan Bachawat and A.P. 396/2010 Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhuri Heard on : June 14, 2013, July 19, 2013, August 6, 13, 16, 27 and 30, 2013, September 3, 6, 13, 17 and 20, 2013, November 12, 2013, January 31, 2014 and February 18, 2014 Judgment on : December 19, 2014 1. Scope of interference with an arbitral award is permissible on grounds limited to those, which are found in section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act). Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-07-2014
In The High Court at Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side GA1005of 2013 CS95of 2013 Renu Agarwala and Ors. -VsSushila Devi Agarwal and Ors. Present: : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the petitioner : Mr. Suman Dutta, Adv. Mr. M.S. Tewari, Adv. Mr. S.K. Tewari, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. S.P. Sarkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Asit Baran Routh, Adv. Mr. Subhodeep Sen, Adv. Mr. Bimalendu Das, Adv. Heard On :28. h and 29th August, 2014 Judgment On :07. 11/2014 Arijit Banerjee, J.(1) Maharshi Menhi Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust) is a public charitable trust that was formed in the year 1999. Disputes and differences between the two groups of trustees of the said trust have culminated in the present suit and application. (2) The undisputed facts of the case are that by a deed of declaration of trust dated 19th May, 1999, the defendant No.1 settled the said trust. The first trustees of the said trust were the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1, Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen W.P.129 of 2011 With W.P.646 of 2013 M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. D.N. Ray, Mr. B. Das, For the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 : Mr. Soumitra Banerjee For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pronab Kr. Dutta Heard on :28. 01.2014, 14.02.2014, 21.02.2014, 14.03.2014, 29.04.2014. 05.05.2014 Judgment on :8. h May, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The hearing of both the writ petitions are taken up together. The writ petitioner has filed W.P.129 of 2011 for canceling and/or revoking and/or rescinding the order dated December 23, 2010, passed by the Officer on special duty Additional Chief Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of West Bengal in declining to extend exemption under Section 87 and/or 88 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as E.S.I. Act. as it appeared to the said au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-14-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.No.174 OF2002With G.A.No.2343 OF2013Nandalal Rathi versus The Kamalalaya Centre Shops & Office Owners Association & ORS.For the plaintiff : Mr.Jayanta Banerjee, Ms.Amrita Pandey, Mr.S.R.Saha, For the defendants : Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Heard on : 13.02.2013, 27.02.2013, 13.03.2013, 12.04.2013, 03.06.2013, 01.07.2013, 08.08.2013, 30.08.2013, 14.02.2014, 28.02.2014 Judgment on : 14th March, 2014 Soumen Sen, J.:- The defendants have filed this application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The petitioners-defendants in the petition have stated that the plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the letter containing the defamatory statement was published on 3rd February, 2001. Accordingly, in terms of Article 75 of the limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for compensation for libel is one year from the date when the libel was published...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-16-2014
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And The Hon'ble Justice Sudip Ahluwalia ITAT No.189 of 2013 G.A.No.3382 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA Versus M/S.GLASS EQUIPMENT (INDIA) LTD Heard on: 20.3.2014, 21.3.2014 & 2.4.2014 Hearing Concluded on: 2nd April, 2014 Judgment on : 16/05/2014 Advocate for the Appellant: Mr R.N.Bandopadhyay, Advocate Ms.SuklaDas Chandra, Advocate. Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.R.K.Murarka, Advocate Ms.Sutapa Roychoudhury, Advocate. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has come up in appeal. The assessee has filed a Cross Objection. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Mr.Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Mr.Arijit Banerjee APO360of 2013 CS212of 2013 UCO Bank -Vs.Saumyendra Roy Chaudhury & ORS.For the appellant : Mr.Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debdutta Sen, Adv.Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.For respondents 5, 6, 7 : Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Ld Adv.Gen. For respondent No.1 Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Sharma, Adv.Mr.Tarun Aich, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, Heard on : 2014 Judgment On : 15/05/2014 Arijit Banerjee, J. The rules and regulations of UCO Bank, the appellant herein provided for representation of the share-holders on the Board of Directors of the Bank in the form of share-holder directORS.The decision of the Nomination Committee rejecting the nomination of the respondent No.1 for election to the Board of the Bank in the category of a s...
Tag this Judgment!