Mrs. K. Sulekha Begam vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 23 March, 2015

Calcutta High Court
Mrs. K. Sulekha Begam vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 23 March, 2015
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
                                     ORDER SHEET
                                     GA 736/2015
                                      APO 1/1993
                                    WP 1548/1991
                            IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE



                                MRS. K. SULEKHA BEGAM
                                       Versus
                                STATE OF W.B. & ORS.


     BEFORE:

     The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Date : 23rd March, 2015.

Mr. H. Banerjee, Adv., with Mr. L.M. Hazra, Adv., Mr. S. Panja, Adv., Ms. M.

Hazra, Adv., for appellant.

Mr. B. Banerjee, Adv. with Mr. D. Mondal, Adv., for KMC.

Mr. M. Malhotra, Adv., for State.

The Court : Learned Advocate representing the appellant submits that

the paper books were filed on earlier occasion in the department although

erroneously the appeal number was mentioned as Appeal No.1 of 1993 instead of

Appeal No.1 of 1992. The appeal was dismissed for non-submission of the paper

books in time.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, we direct the department to

enquire whether the paper books in relation to Appeal No.1 of 1993 (Mrs. K.

Suleha Begum -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) were filed on behalf of the

appellant, and submit a report before this Court on 25th March, 2015.

Let the matter be listed for hearing on 25th March, 2015.

(PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.)
tk

M/S. Graphite India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv on 30 January, 2015

Calcutta High Court
M/S. Graphite India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv on 30 January, 2015
Author: Girish Chandra Gupta


IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
Original Side

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta
And
The Hon’ble Justice Arindam Sinha
30.01.2015

ITA 266 of 2008
M/s. Graphite India Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax – IV, Kolkata

Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmik, Advocate
Mr. Somak Baasu, Advocate
Mr. C.S. Das, Advocate for the appellant

The Court :- No one appears for the Revenue in spite of service. Mr.

Bhowmik is requested to appear for the Revenue. Let a copy of the petition be

served upon him. The matter be listed on 4th February, 2015.

(Girish Chandra Gupta, J.)

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

ANC.

Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shrimati Ila Basu & Ors on 11 December, 2014

Calcutta High Court
Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shrimati Ila Basu & Ors on 11 December, 2014
Author: Soumen Sen
ORDER SHEET


                         EC NO.517 OF 2014
                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                            ORIGINAL SIDE




                           IN THE MATTER OF :
                             KABARI PVT. LTD.
                                   Versus
                         SHRIMATI ILA BASU & ORS.


 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

Date : 11th December, 2014.

MR.GAUTAM CHAKRABORTI,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.R.N.JHUNJHUNWALA, MR.J.B.PANDA,
MR.R.DUTTA,ADVOCATES FOR DECREE HOLDER
MR.SAYANTAN BOSE, MR.A.PODDAR, MR.A.GARODZA,ADVOCATES FOR JUDGMENT DEBTORS

The Court : The judgment debtors have preferred an

appeal against the decree passed by this Court. The Appeal Court by a

judgment dated 25th November, 2014 affirmed the decree.

Mr.Sayantan Bose, learned counsel representing the

judgment debtors submits that a special leave petition has been

preferred against the judgment of the division bench. However, it is
2
submitted that the matter is yet to be listed before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. In such circumstances, the matter is adjourned till 6th January,

2015.

Supplementary affidavit along with affidavit of service filed

on behalf of the decree holder is kept on record.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be

urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite

formalities.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.)

sb.

Hasmukh Muljhi Mehta (Decd.) vs Unknown on 31 July, 2014

Calcutta High Court
Hasmukh Muljhi Mehta (Decd.) vs Unknown on 31 July, 2014
Author: I. P. Mukerji
                       GA No.2207 of 2014
                        PLA No.289 of 2002
                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction
                         ORIGINAL SIDE


                      IN THE GOODS OF:
                 HASMUKH MULJHI MEHTA (DECD.)


BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI

Date : 31st July, 2014.

Appearance:

Mr. S.Saha, Advocate

The Court: Probate was granted in 2002. Considering the fact

that the estate of the testator should be speedily administered, this

application is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Master’s

Summons, inventory and accounts to be filed by 14th August, 2014.

Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(I.P.MUKERJI, J.)
G/

Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd vs Asset Reconstruction Company … on 17 December, 2013

Calcutta High Court
Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd vs Asset Reconstruction Company … on 17 December, 2013
Author: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                         G.A. No. 3440 of 2013
                          C.S. No. 74 of 2007
                      EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.
                                Versus
           ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.

                                        AND

                         G.A. No. 3443 of 2013
                                  With
                          C.S. No. 73 of 2007
                      EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.
                                Versus
           ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
  Date : 17th December, 2013.

                                                                   Appearance :
                                              Mr. Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate,
                                                   Ms. Suruchi Agarwal, Advocate
                                                                 ...for petitioners

                                                  Mr. R. Bhattacharrya, Advocate,
                                                          Mr. K. Mullick, Advocate
                                                                ...for respondents.

The Court : After hearing the parties G.A. No. 3440 of 2013 and G.A.

No. 3443 of 2013 are disposed of by directing early hearing of G.A. No. 1939 of

2013 with C.S. No. 73 of 2007, G.A. No. 1912 of 2013 with C.S. No. 74 of 2007

and G.A. No. 2655 of 2013 with C.S. No. 75 of 2007 as provided in the order

passed in each of these applications.

All connected applications should be listed together.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order

on the usual undertakings.

(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)

akb/

Icici Bank Limited vs Arambagh Hatcheries Limited on 13 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
Icici Bank Limited vs Arambagh Hatcheries Limited on 13 June, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji
                                      CA No. 194 of 2010
                                       CP NO.60 OF 2010
                                      CA NO.763 OF 2010
                                      CP NO.383 OF 2009
                               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                                       Original Jurisdiction



                                     IN THE MATTER OF:
                                     ICICI BANK LIMITED
                                             AND
                                ARAMBAGH HATCHERIES LIMITED

    BEFORE:

    The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI

Date : 13th June, 2011.

Mr. D.D. Sen, Ms. S. Ghosh…for petitioner.

Mr. A. Das…appears.

The Court : This is a winding up application coming up for final orders. None

appears for the company, even at the second call. No accommodation is sought. Mr. Sen

is fair enough to submit that he is reluctant to press for a final order in the absence of

the other side.

In the circumstances, list this application with the warning “Last Chance” on 20th

June, 2011 at the top.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual

undertakings.

                                                          (I.    P. MUKERJI, J.)
pkd.
Asstt.Registrar[C.R.]
 

Srp Oil Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Unknown on 13 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
Srp Oil Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Unknown on 13 June, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji


CP No.194 of 2011
With
CA No.203 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

In the matter of:

SRP Oil Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice
I.P. Mukerji
Date: 13.06.2011
Appearance:

Ms. Manju Bhuteria Adv.,
Ms. Asha G. Gutgutia Adv.,

The Court: The first objection of the Central Government is that

the authorised share capital of the transferee company is insufficient to

allot shares to members of the transferor company/companies, according

to the scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that

the necessary increase in the authorised capital will be made by eight

weeks from date.

As far as the sale of shares at a premium point is concerned, I have

decided in the case of CP No.536 of 2010 with CA No.815 of 2010 (in the

matter of Astha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) on 16th May, 2011 that such

issue may be pursued by the Central Government in another forum and

that it was not relevant in a sanction of scheme application.
2

I follow that judgement and keep this issue open for the Central

Government. Accordingly, I allow this application by passing orders in

terms of prayers (a) to (i) of the petition.

In the event the petitioner supply a legible computerized print out

of the scheme and the schedule of assets in acceptable form to the

department, the department will append such computerized print out,

upon verification, to the certified copy of the order without insisting on a

handwritten copy thereof.

The petitioner is directed to pay costs assessed at 200 Gms. to the

Central Government.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order

on the usual undertakings.

(I.P. Mukerji, J.)

SP/

Bijay Kumar Agarwal vs Narayani Debi Agarwal & Ors on 13 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
Bijay Kumar Agarwal vs Narayani Debi Agarwal & Ors on 13 June, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
                        APOT 158 OF 2011
                        G.A.1204 OF 2011
                       C.S.NO.61 OF 2011

               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                        Original Side

BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL                                      Appellant
    Versus
NARAYANI DEBI AGARWAL & ORS.                             Respondent

For Appellant : Mr.G.S.Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Mukherjee with
Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay,Advocates

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA

The Hon’ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

Date : 13th June, 2011.

THE COURT : This matter has been mentioned with
notice to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant for extension of time to file affidavit in
opposition before the learned single Judge.

While disposing of the appeal we granted time till
today for filing such affidavit-in-opposition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
we extend the said time by a further week from today for the
purpose of compliance of our earlier order. Reply, if any,
be given within a fortnight thereafter.

We modify our earlier order dated 6th June, 2011
only to the extent indicated abaove.

2

Photostat certified copy of this order be made
available to the parties upon compliance of usual
formalities.

( BHATTACHARYA, J.)

(DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.)

Rsg
(ARCR)

M/S.Murlidhar Ratanlal vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
M/S.Murlidhar Ratanlal vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 June, 2011
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
                                 WP No. 290 of 2011
                            IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE


     M/S.MURLIDHAR RATANLAL                    ..      Petitioner

        Versus

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     ..      Respondents

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

Date : 13th June, 2011.

The Court : Opposition by three weeks. Reply by two weeks thereafter.

Matter to appear after six weeks. This direction is peremptory.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on

the usual undertakings.

(ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J.)
km

Mridul Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs S.G. Karel & Sons Jewellers Pvt. … on 13 June, 2011

Calcutta High Court
Mridul Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs S.G. Karel & Sons Jewellers Pvt. … on 13 June, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji
                                      CA No. 551 of 2011
                                       CP NO.451 OF 2010
                                       CA NO.637 OF 2010
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                                      Original Jurisdiction



                                       IN THE MATTER OF:
                                MRIDUL VINIMAY PVT. LTD. & ANR.
                                              AND
                             S.G. KAREL & SONS JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.

        BEFORE:

        The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI

Date : 13th June, 2011.

Ms. M. Bhutoria…for applicant.

The Official Liquidator appears.

The Court : This is an application for dissolution without winding up of the

transferor company. The Official Liquidator has stated in his report being Annexure ‘B’

to the application that the affairs of the transferor company have not been conducted in

a manner prejudicial to the interest of the members or to the public.

Accordingly, order is passed in terms of prayers [a] to [c] of the Judge’s Summons.

The application is thus disposed of. The applicant is directed to pay costs

assessed at 150 GMS. to the Official Liquidator.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual

undertakings.

(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)
Pkd.

Asstt.Registrar[C.R.]