Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET T No.23 of 2017 AP No.. . of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TECHMA ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD.VERSUS UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD Date : 12th October, 2017. (VACATION BENCH) Appearance: Mr.Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Aasish Choudhury, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.Ms.Aindrila Basu, Adv..for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Kumar Mishra, Adv..for the Union of India. The Court : This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended. The petitioner company has a business of manufacturing and export of Railway Track Components, Railway Track Fittings, Fish Plate etc.In terms of an electronic tender notice no.CETPSER2016006 inviting tenders for manufacture and supply of Electric Rail Clips Mk-III conforming of IRS specification No.T-31-1992, corrigendum No.3 of Jan 16 and as per RDSOs drawing No.T-3701, Alt. 5 for 60 kg/52 kg rail and sleeper the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET T No.21 of 2017 AP No.. of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE STEMCo.IRON ORE HOLDINGS LTD.& ANR. Versus ARYAN MINING & TRADING CORPN. PVT.LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 3rd October, 2017. Vacation Bench Appearance: Mr.S.K. Kapoor Sr.Adv.Mr.Sakate Khaitan, Adv.Mr.Gaurav Khaitan, Adv.Ms.Jyoti Krishnan, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Mr.Pranit Bag, Adv.Ms.Pritha Basu, Adv.Ms.S.Tiwari, Adv.. for the petitioneRs.Mr.Kapil Sibbal Sr.Adv.Mr.Vikram Nankani Sr.Adv.Mr.Samrat Sen Sr.Adv.Ms.Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.Mr.Naresh Thacker, Adv.Mr.Ashish Prasad, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.Mr.Avisekh Das, Adv.Mr.Darshan Upadhyay, Adv.Mr.A.K.Singh, Adv.. for the respondent no.1. Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Adv.Mr.Anuj Singh, Adv.Mr.Anand Varma, Adv.Mr.Dhananjoy Mishra, Adv.2 Mr.Nishit Agrawal, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Siddharta Kanta, Adv.Mr.Avishek Das, Adv.. for the respondent nos.2 to 12. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil appellate Jurisdiction (In Appeal From An Order Passed In Its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Present: The Honble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya And The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad A.P.O.T No.392 of 2016 with G.A.No.3396 of 2016 Shree Laxmi Iron & Steel Works PVT.LTD.Versus Research Designs & Standard Organisation (RDSO).ORS.For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocate, Ms.Srinanda Bose, Advocate, Mr.Avijit Dey, Advocate. For the RITES Ltd : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the RDSO : Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate, Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Advocate. For the Konkon Railways : Mr.Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate, Mr.Dipanjan Datta, Advocate, Mr.Atanu Basu, Advocate, Ms.Rituparna Saha, Advocate, Mr.Jay Manna, Advocate, Ms.Reshma Chatterjee, Advocate. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate, Chayan Gupta, Advocate, A. Basu, Advocate Dwip Raj Basu, Advocate. Heard On : 04.8.17, 08.8.17, 09.08.17, 10.8.17, 16.8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil appellate Jurisdiction (In Appeal From An Order Passed In Its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Present: The Honble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya And The Honble Justice Shivakant Prasad A.P.O.T No.416 of 2016 with G.A.No.3565 of 2016 Surya Alloy Industries Limited Versus Union of India & ORS.For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Advocate, Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate, Gautam Shroff, Advocate, Tanoy Chakraborty, Advocate, Abhisekh Singh, Advocate For the RITES Ltd : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate, Chayan Gupta, Advocate, A. Basu, Advocate Dwip Raj Basu, Advocate. For the RDSO : Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate, Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Advocate. Heard On : 29.8.17, 31.8.17, 07.9.17 & 14.09.17 Judgement on : 22nd September, 2017 Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.This appeal is directed against an order dated 15th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in G.A No.16 of 2013 filed in a suit being C.S.No.417 of ...
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.1688 of 2017 G.A.No.1571 of 2017 C.S.No.79 of 2017 RAJENDRA BAJORIA & ORS.AND CHIRANJILAL BAJORIA & ORS.versus SUDHIR JALAN & ORS.For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv., Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv., Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Sarvapriyo Mukherjee, Adv., Ishaan Saha, Adv., Paritosh Saha, Adv.Joydeep Roy, Adv., Arijit Dey, Adv.For the Defendant No.3 : Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Raj Ratna Sen, Adv., Ms.Srishti Barman Roy, Adv., Mr.D.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.S.Chowdhury, Adv., Ms.Srija Banerjee, Adv.For the Defendant Nos.2,7,8,9,11, 12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20 and 21. : Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Sr.Adv., Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Adv., Mr.Sarathi Dasgupta, Adv., Ms.Nikita Jhunjhunwala, Adv., Mr.Asim Choudhury, Adv.Hearing Concluded On : 14.09.2017 Judgment On : 22nd September, 2017 Soumen Sen, J.:- The defendant No.3 is the appl...
Tag this Judgment!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 GA1643of 2014 GA2907of 2014 GA2908of 2014 GA2909of 2014 GA2910of 2014 CS405of 2013 Ashok Kumar Bhagnani -Vs.Mansur Ahmed & Anr. Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the plaintiff : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Sr.Adv.Ms.Somali Mukhopadhyay, Adv.For the defendants Heard On CAV On Judgment On Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) : Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.S.M. Ismail, Adv.Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Adv.: 05.06.2015, 11.12.2015, 22.04.2016, 16.06.2016 19.07.2016, 12.08.2016, 22.11.2016, 03.01.2017 07.03.2017, 05.05.2017 : 15.05.2017 : 21.09.2017 The plaintiff filed the present suit on 22 November, 2013 claiming a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, decree for arrear rent, decree for damages and decree for mesne profits. The writ of summons was received by the defendants on 10 December, 2013. The defendants entered appearance through their learned Advocate on 12 December, 2013. The written statem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE The Honble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE And The Honble JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY APO No.63 of 2017 GA No.834 of 2017 With OCO No.1 of 2017 In AP No.736 of 2011 STATE OF WEST BENGAL -VERSUSPAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED For the Appellant: Mr Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv., Mr Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Ms Manali Ali, Adv., Mr Arindam Mondal, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr Tilok Bose, Sr Adv., Mr Suman Dutt, Adv., Mr Priyankar Saha, Adv., Mr Amritam Mandal, Adv. Hearing concluded on: September 14, 2017. Date: September 21, 2017. SANJIB BANERJEE, J.: The treatment of no damage. clauses in a works contract falls for consideration in this matter. There has been considerable industry on either side in an attempt to bring some clarity on the legal issue in the backdrop of there being no apparent uniformity on the jurisprudential principles governing such aspect in this country.2. The immediate lis is an appeal from an order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction (Original Side) C.P.1066 of 2016 Binani Industries LTD.versus Milestone BrandCo.PVT.LTD.For the Petitioner:- Mr.S.N.Mookherji, Sr.Advocate Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Advocate Mr.Joyjit Ganguly Mr.Pradip Sancheti Mr.S.S.Sarkar ..Advocates For the Respondent:- Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.D.K.Jain ...Advocates Judgement on:- 20th September, 2017 I.P.Mukerji,J. This is a winding up application by Milestone BrandCo.PVT.Ltd., the petitioning creditor, against Binani Industries Ltd., the company. The petitioning creditor is based in Mumbai. The petitioning creditor says that they were approached by a division of the respondent company, Media Magix to carry out the companys publicity programme across India. It started from 2009 and continued till the financial year 2015-2016. Between 13th November, 2015 and 28th July, 2016 nine invoices were raised by them on the respondent company. For each of the invoices a credit note was issued which meant that ...
Tag this Judgment!