Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TS92008 IN THE GOODS OF : ASIM KUMAR DAS (DEC) AND MANOJ KUMAR DAS -VSKAKALI DAS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 6th September, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Suman Kumdar Dutt, Mr.Paritosh Sinha Mr.Joydeep Roy Mr.A.Dey, Adversus Mr.Chanchal Kumar Dutt, Ms.Krishna Mullick, Adversus The Court : PLA62of 2006 was filed by the propounder plaintiff Sr.Manoj Kumar Das for having grant of probate on the last Will and Testament dated 24th February, 2005 of Asim Kumar Das (deceased).The probate application has been contested by the defendant by filing caveat and affidavit in support of such caveat and subsequently, the proceeding has been treated as a testamentary suit. Now, the parties have reached a settlement that is to say the defendant agreed not to oppose the grant of probate. The settlement has been taken on record. The Will has been duly proved. In the settlement one issue has been agreed by b...
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.1919 of 2017 G.A.No.1705 of 2017 G.A.2282 of 2017 C.S.No.113 of 2017 SESA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED versus AVANI PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.AND RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD.For the Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.V.N.Dwivedi, Adv., Mr.Argha Jena, Adv., Ms.Jayanti Char, Adv.For the Defendant No.2 : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the Respondents : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Anirban Kr. Ray, Adv.For Reliance Commercial Finance : Mr.Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ravi Kapur, Adv., Mr.A.Kanodia, Adv.Hearing Concluded On : 17.08.2017 Judgment On : 5th September, 2017 Soumen Sen, J:- S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv., Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv., Vikas Tewary, Adv.Sanket Saraogi, Adv.The three applications filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 and Reliance Commercial Finance LTD.are disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER EC No.323 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction THE ORIENTAL GAS Co.LTD.& ORS.Versus DINESH VINIYOG LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 5th September 2017. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Advocate Mr.Sachin Shukla, Advocate Mr.Tridib Bose, Advocate ...for the decree-holdeRs.Mr.S.N. Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate ...for the judgment-debtORS.This is an application for execution of a foreign decree dated 12th March 1988. maintainability of The judgment-debtors have questioned the this application on the ground that this application was filed on 19th July 2011, after lapse of a period of 12 years from the date of the decree. It is submitted that a prior execution application filed by the decree-holders on 19th December 2006 was disposed of by an order dated 17th March 2009 and if any application was further required to be filed for execution of the said decree, then such applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA2932of 2017 With CS196of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ESKAY VIDEO PVT.LTD.Versus FEDERATION OF CINE TECHNICIANS AND WORKERS OF EASTERN INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 4th September, 2017. Appearance: Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Suvashish Sengupta, Adv.Mr.Orijit Chatterjee, Adv.MRS.Arunima Laha, Adv.Mr.Indranil Karfa, Adv.Ms.Adreeka Pandey, Adv.for the plaintiff. Mr.Jishnu Shah, Sr.Adv.Mr.Yash Vardhan Deora, Adv.for the defendant no.1. Mr.Joydip Kar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Soumya Majumdar, Adv.Mr.Aryak Dutt, Adv.Mr.S.Ghosh, Adv.for the defendant no.5. The Court : The film relates to shooting of two feature filMs.namely, Tui Sudhu Amar and Chalbaaz. a producer of filMs.The plaintiff is The plaintiff alleges that the defendant no.1 has blacklisted the plaintiff and members of the defendant nos.4 and 5 in acting and/or being associated with the said filMs.It is alleged that the defendant no.1 is preventin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side W.P.No.116 of 2006 Bengal Srei Infrastructure Development & ORS.versus Union of India & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.Abhratosh Majumder, Addl. Adv.General Ms.Anupa Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Mr.Amitava Mitra, Advocate Mr.Aritra Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondents : Md.Nizamuddin, Advocate Mr.R.K.Sinha, Advocate Hearing concluded on : August 7, 2017 Judgment on : September 1, 2017 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The petitioners have assailed Chapter XII-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unconstitutional being opposed by Article 14 and 246(1) read with Entry 82 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing in support of the writ petition has contended at the hearing of the writ petition that, the impugned Chapter if read down in the manner suggested, then, the entire Chapter can pass the test of constitutionality. He has referred to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side A.P.No.1268 of 2013 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus M/S.Star Battery Limited For the petitioners:- Mr.Debabrata Saha Roy Mr.Pingal Bhattacharjee Advocates For the Respondents:- Ms.Noelle Banerjee Mr.Dipak Dey Mr.Dipanjan Dey Advocates Judgement On: - 31st August, 2017 I.P.MUKERJI, J. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award dated 19th August, 2013 passed by a former judge of the subordinate judiciary is under challenge. A very interesting point is involved. On 21st October, 2008 the petitioner Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited concluded a contract with the respondent Star Battery Limited. The respondent was to supply 542 items of battery described as SMF VRLA600AH to the petitioner at or for the gross consideration including duties and taxes, of Rs.10,40,23,149.46. The delivery schedule was four months from the date of issuance of the purchase order an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side A.P.No.555 of 2017 Jaydeb Purakait versus M/S.Indusind Bank Ltd & Anr. For the petitioners:- Mr.B.B.Sarkar MRS.Iti Dutta Advocates For the Respondents:- Mr.Pranit Bag Mr.S.R.Ganguly Ms.P.Sett Advocates Judgement On: - 31st August, 2017 I.P.MUKERJI, J. This application is framed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But during the couRs.of hearing of the application Mr.Sarkar learned counsel for the petitioner tried run an alternative case that the appointing authority or appointed arbitrator was not proceeding with the arbitration with due diligence or was refusing to act. Hence, he should be removed under Section 14 of the said Act. Now, the short background of the case is that on 31st October, 2012 the parties entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement. A loan of Rs.20,00,000 advanced by the respondent with which the petitioner bought a Mahindra MN25Tipper of 25 tons. The loan amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET WP No.506 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SWASTIK OIL REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 31st August, 2017. Appearance: Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.P.Chatterjee, Adv.For the petitioner. Mr.Somnath Ganguli, Adv.Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv.For the respondents. The Court :- A show cause-cum-demand notice dated August 8, 2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice, the same has not been disposed of till date. He submits that, the authorities have invoked the extended period of limitation as would appear from the impugned show cause-cum-demand notice. He submits that, if a claim made by the Department in the show cause notice is barred by limitation, then such show cause notice has to be treated without jurisdiction and a writ petition is i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA No.971 of 2017 With RVWO No.13 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.CYGNUS INVESTMENTS & FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus KAMALA RANJAN CHAKRABORTY & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 30th August, 2017. Appearance: Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.A.Ray, Adv.Mr.Susanta Dutta, Adv.Mr.Debraj De, Adv.The Court : This is an application for review of an order passed on 17th February, 2017. In this application the Court was reminded that as an executing Court, the Court cannot go behind the decree and make an enquiry to find out whether the Arbitrator has properly exercised his jurisdiction. It is strenuously argued in support of the review application that there is an error apparent on the face of the record since the quoted portion of the report appearing from the impugned order, it would not appear that Deepak Traders was in any manner linked or related to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the grounds on which the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side GA1944of 2017 GA2211of 2017 CS131of 2010 Sanjay Singh & Anr. versus Hindustan Unilever Limited Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Reetobroto Mitra, Adv.Ms.Anindita Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Pradip Kumar Sarawagi, Adv.For the defendant : Ms.Moushumi Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.S.Dutta, Adv.Ms.Anshumala Bansal, Adv.Heard On : 22.06.2017 & 18.07.2017 CAV On : 01.08.2017 Judgment On : 30.08.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) G.A.No.1944 of 2017 has been taken out by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. G.A.No.2211 of 2017 is also the defendants application for an order directing the plaintiffs to give inspection of the Partnership Deed whereby the firm Sanjay & Co.was constituted. I will consider the earlier application first. (2) Ms.Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant had appointed a partnership firm namely, Sa...
Tag this Judgment!