Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 1 of about 721,662 results (5.220 seconds)

May 22 2017 (HC)

Sandip Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Court : Jharkhand

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a.no. 2862 of 2017 md. tauhid ali ..... petitioner versus the state of jharkhand .... opposite party --------- coram: hon'ble mr. justice anant bijay singh --------- for the petitioner : mr. md. zaid ahmed, adv. for the opposite party : app --------- 02/dated:22. 05.2017 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state & informant. the defects as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored. the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under sections 11(1) a,c,d,e,f,h,l,k,38/3 and 29(1) (2) of prevention from cruelty to animal act, rule 47. 48, 50, 52, 54, 56 (c ) of transport and improvement act, and section 3 , 4 (a) (b) (d) , 5, 6, 12, (1), (2) (3), 13, 15, 16 of jharkhand bovine animal prohibition of slaughter act. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of truck bearing registration no.wb19 6292. learned app has opposed the prayer for bail. be that as it may, i am inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. the petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the court below shall release him on bail on his furnishing bail bond of rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned j.m.dhanbad, in connection with complaint case no.594/2017, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2017 (HC)

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. Vs. Ideb Projects Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction (original side) g.a. no.2317 of 2015 c.s. no.29 of 2013 tata steel processing & distribution ltd. vs. ideb projects pvt. ltd. for the plaintiffs/ respondents:- mr. m.k. ghosh...sr. advocate mr. s.k. dutta mr. retabrata mitra mr. atish ghosh ....advocates for the respondents:- mr. r.s. mantha...sr. advocate mr. m. rajeswara rao mr. ranjan bachwat...sr. advocate mr. debnath ghosh mr. r. ginodia ms. pubali sinha chowdhury ...advocates judgement on:- 19th may, 2017 i.p. mukerji,j.this is an application under order ix rule 13 of the code of civil procedure. it is for setting aside the exparte decree dated 3rd december, 2014 passed by this court in the above suit. by this decree the defendant was directed to pay rs. 14,61,60,384 with interest @ 12% simple interest per annum from january, 2010 till payment, to the plaintiff. the writ of summons was duly served on the defendant. this is certified by the deputy sheriff in a certificate dated 16th july, 2014. the parties also admit service of the summons sometime in september 2013. this application of the defendant is signed and verified by a harkirat singh bedi. he says in this application that he is a director of the defendant. the company is entangled in litigation in delhi, bangalore and kolkata. he is constantly moving across the country and abroad. he believes in shooting e-mails to his lawyer, asking them to take care of his litigation. at least that is what he .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2017 (HC)

Auroshikha Vinimay Private Limited Vs. Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

order sheet wp281of 2017 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side auroshikha vinimay private limited versus allahabad bank & ors.before: the hon'ble justice debangsu basak date : 18th may, 2017. appearance: mr.jishnu saha, sr.adv.mr.k.r.thaker, adv.mr.saket chowdhury, adv.mr.avinash kankani, adv.mr.om narayan rai, adv.mr.krishnendu sooptu, mr.prantik garai, mr.k.chatterjee, mrs.m.sarkar, adv.adv.adv.adv.the court : the petitioner assails an order dated november 29, 2016 passed by the debts recovery tribunal-i in i.a.no.716 of 2016 arising out of s.a.no.67 of 2013. learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a guarantor of a credit facility enjoyed by the borrower from the respondent no.1. property owned by the petitioner was put up for sale by public auction under the provisions of the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 by the authorised officer of the respondent no.1. immovable property concerned. he refers to the value of the he submits that, the property was valued at rs.3.70 crores on september 19, 2014. it was enhanced to rs.5.23 crores in 2015 and ultimately to rs.6.23 crores on january 9, 2016. he submits that, the sale notice had fixed a reserved price of rs.3.16 crores for the property concerned and the property was surprisingly sold at rs.3.17 crores. he submits that, the sale of the immovable property concerned has to be seen in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2017 (HC)

The Pei May Chinese High School and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side wp391of 2016 the pei may chinese high school & anr. -vs.the state of west bengal with wp518of 2016 liang miao sheng & ors.-vs.the state of west bengal before for the petitioners : the hon ble justice arijit banerjee : mr.kalyan bandopadhyay, sr.adv.mr.d.saha roy, adv.mr.a panda, adv.for the petitioners (in wp518of 2016) : mr.s.bandopadhyay, adv.mr.s.pal, adv.mr.a.k. nag, adv.for the respondent no.4 : mr.jayanta banerjee, adv.mr.sunil kumar chakraborty, adv.ms.rama chakraborty, adv.ms.sreetama neogi, adv.for the state : mr.amitesh banerjee, adv.mr.bishajib ghosh, adv.heard on : 26.09.2016, 28.09.2016, 03.10.2016, 07.11.2016 10.11.2016, 17.11.2016, 24.11.2016 cav on : 23.12.2016 judgment on : 18.05.2017 arijit banerjee, j.:(1) the subject matter of challenge in both these writ petitions is an order passed by the registrar of firms.societies and non-trading corporations, west bengal, being the respondent no.2 (in short the registrar ) being memo dated 29-rfs dated 19 april, 2016. by the said order the registrar has cancelled the registration of pei mey chinese high school (the petitioner no.1 in wp no.391 of 2016 and in short the school ) under the west bengal societies registration act, 1961. since the issues of fact and law involved in the two writ petitions are the same the two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal. undisputed facts of the case: (2) the school applied for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2017 (HC)

Jsb Cement Llp Vs. Assam Roofing Limited and Others

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta civil appellate jurisdiction original side the hon ble justice sanjib banerjee and the hon ble justice siddhartha chattopadhyay apo no.211 of 2017 ga no.4003 of 2015 ga no.3979 of 2015 with oco no.4 of 2017 in cs no.106 of 2015 jsb cement llp -versusassam roofing limited and others for the appellant: mr anindya kumar mitra, sr adv., mr abhrajit mitra, sr adv., mr s. mukherjee, adv., mr pranit bag, adv., mr b. kumar, adv., ms iram hassan, adv. for the respondents: mr jayanta mitra, sr adv., mr ranjan bachawat, sr adv., mr debnath ghosh, adv., mr soumya ray chowdhury, adv., mr gautam banerjee, adv. hearing concluded on: may 12, 2017. date: may 18, 2017. sanjib banerjee, j.: the rhinoceros is in the court: not to protest its shrinking natural habitat as it has no voice to do so; but only by its shorter, more-endearing name. and even as the parties jostle in the reflected glory of the majestic rhino, the name itself threatens to be a bull in the china shop of trademark law.2. the appeal is directed against a judgment and order of december 9, 2015 by which the appellant has been restrained from manufacturing, selling or distributing or advertising or dealing with cement under the mark rhino in a particular colour scheme and get-up and also from infringing the contesting respondents mark of rhino . in addition, the appellant has also been restrained from passing off cement under the mark rhino in sacks with the red, black and white colour scheme or get .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2017 (HC)

Kailash Pandit Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court : Jharkhand

cr. appeal (db) no. 1436 of 2008 with i.a. no. 5809 of 2016 1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi criminal appeal (db) no. 1436 of 2008 with i.a. no. 5809 of 2016 (against the judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2008 and order of sentence dated 24.10.2008 passed by learned additional sessions judge-fast track court, koderma, in sessions trial no. 2 of 2008). ------------- kailash pandit .. appellant versus state of jharkhand . . respondent -------- for the appellant : m/s kaushik sarkhel & d.k. deo, advocates for the respondent-state : mr. azimuddin, a.p.p. -------- present : hon ble mr. justice h. c. mishra : hon ble mr. justice rongon mukhopadhyay ------- by court.:- heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the state.2. the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2008 and order of sentence dated 24.10.2008 passed in sessions trial no. 2 of 2008, by the learned additional sessions judge, fast track court, koderma, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under sections 304-b and 201 / 34 of the indian penal code. upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo r.i. for life for the offence under section 304-b of the indian penal code and r.i. for 3 years and fine of rs. 5,000/- for the offence under sections 201 / 34 of the indian penal code.3. according to the prosecution case, the deceased anita devi was married to the appellant kailash pandit about .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2017 (HC)

Smt Saili Ghose and Ors. Vs. Debapriyo Sen and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

od-11 order sheet ga1284of 2017 with cs1147of 1947 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side smt saili ghose & ors.versus debapriyo sen & ors.before: the hon'ble justice sahidullah munshi date : 17th may, 2017. appearance : mr.p.c.sen, sr.adv.mr.h.p.basu, adv.mr.subir sabud, adv.the court :- this application is filed on behalf of arati dutta, defendant no.5 representing the shebaits of the deity sr.sr.iswar gokul chandra jew. the said application has been taken out to espouse the cause of the shebaits of the said deity. mr.sen, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the application has filed affidavit of service and the same is taken on record. affidavit of service filed before this court shows that the opposite parties in the application has received copies of the application. however, despite service no one appears on their behalf today. the applicant submits that she is one of the shebaits out of the descendents of pramiila sundari dutta, original defendant no.8 in suit no.1147 of 1947. the applicants have made a prayer that leave be granted to the applicants to enter into an agreement with the developer/purchasers for development of the property as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the application. it has been contended on behalf of the applicant (shebaits) of the aforesaid deity that by a final decree dated 9.4.1959 passed by the hon ble jusice prakash chandra mullick (as his lordship then was) the shares of the parties in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2017 (HC)

Sreematy Saili Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Karabi Basu and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

ga1548of 2017 with cs1432of 1946 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side sreematy saili ghosh & ors.versus karabi basu & ors.before: the hon'ble justice sahidullah munshi date : 17th may, 2017. mr.p.c.sen,sr.advocate appears.mr.h.p.basu,advocate appears.mr.subir sabud,advocate appears.the court :- this application is at the instance of prabir kumar dey, defendant no.5 representing the deity, sree sree iswar narayan chandra jew and lakhi thakurani (kunke).this application has been taken out to espouse the cause of shebaits of the said deity. the applicants have made a prayer that leave be granted to the applicants to enter into an agreement with the developers/purchasers for development of the property as mentioned in the plaint and to cause sell thereof and to invest the sale proceeds in a nationalised bank and also for other ancillary reliefs. the applicant is the defendant no.5 representing the group of original defendants, pratul chandra dey and purna chandra dey. the petitioner along with smt. srilata dey and the said smt. sriparna mitra are entitled to hold and possess as such shebaits all that the lands, hereditaments and premises containing by admeasurement an area of 9 cottahs, 06 chittucks and 42 square feet be the same a little more or less being a portion of premises no.20, ultadanga road being the lot bordered green in the map or plan being annexure 2 to the said report and, subsequently, numbered as 20a, ultadanga road, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2017 (HC)

Smt. Saili Ghose and Ors. Vs. Debapriyo Sen and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side ga1253of 2017 with cs1147of1947smt. saili ghose & ors.versus debapriyo sen & ors.before: the hon'ble justice sahidullah munshi date : 17th may, 2017. mr.p.c.sen, sr.advocate mr.h.p.basu, advocate mr.subir sabud, advocate for plaintiffs the court :- this application is at the instance of the applicants representing the shebaits of the deity sr.sr.iswar gokul chandra jew. this application has been taken out to espouse the cause of the defendant of the shebaits of the said deity. mr.sen, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the application has submitted that service has been effected. affidavit of service has been filed today be taken on record. the affidavit of service filed before this court shows that the opposite parties in the application has received copies of the application. however, despite service no one appears on their behalf in court. the applicants have made a prayer that leave be granted to the applicants to enter into an agreement with the developer/purchasers for development of the property of the deity as mentioned in the application and to cause sell thereof and to invest the sale proceeds in a nationalised bank and also for other ancillary reliefs. it has been contended on behalf of the applicants (shebaits) of the aforesaid deity that by a final decree dated 9.4.1959 passed by the hon ble jusice prakash chandra mullick (as his lordship then was) shares of the parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2017 (HC)

Bengal Bonded Warehouse Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of India and O ...

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side present: the hon ble mr.justice subrata talukdar w.p.75 of 2017 bengal bonded warehouse limited & anr. -vs.state bank of india & ors.for the petitioners : mr.abhrajit mitra mr.sarvapriya mukherjee mr.g.khaitan mrs.arunima sengupta for the respondents : mr.suddhasatva banerjee mr.p.k.mukherjee ms.s.r.mishra heard on : 01/03/2017, 08/03/2017, 15/03/2017 & 29/03/2017 judgement on : 17/05/2017 subrata talukdar, j.: in this writ petition the petitioner no.1 is a registered company and, is also represented by impleading its director as co-petitioner, both challenging the action of the respondents/state bank of india connected to the premises at 25, n.s.road, kolkata 700001 (for short the premises).mr.abhrajit mitra, ld. senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by three separate registered deeds of lease entered into by and between the petitioner no.1 as the lessor and the private respondent no.4, being the lessee, the premises were leased out for the years 2006-2008 to be used as office space. mr.mitra submits that thereafter, without the knowledge of the petitioners.the property was mortgaged as a security interest by the private respondent no.4 in favour of the respondents/sbi for a loan advance of around rs.144 crores. disputes and differences having arisen between the petitioners and the respondent nos.3 and 4, being the lessor and lessee respectively, the petitioner no.1 instituted .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //