Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

(Formerly Known as Capstan) Vs. Malay Kumar Chatterjee

(Formerly Known as Capstan) vs Malay Kumar Chatterjee

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 04, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1060578

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

(Formerly Known as Capstan)

Respondent

Malay Kumar Chatterjee

Excerpt

ga no.1057 of 2013 ap no.808 of 2012 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction capstan shipping & estates ltd.(formerly known as capstan) versus malay kumar chatterjee before: the hon'ble justice sanjib banerjee date :4. h april, 2013. appearance: mr.p.k. roy, adv.mr.jayanta kumar mitra, sr.adv.mr.moloy kumar ghosh, adv.the court : the submission made on behalf of the applicant herein was directed to be taken down as made and is reproduced hereinbelow: “mr.pramit kumar roy: it is the submission on the part of malay kumar chatterjee that inasmuch as the award is signed by only one person and not signed by other person, the same may be corrected by remitting the matter back. however, mr.chatterjee does not give consent to set aside the award in its entirety.” this is an application for clarification of an order dated january 18, 2013, the opening sentence whereof reads as follows: “even the respondent agrees that the award is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.” it is the recollection of counsel appearing for the respondent herein and the petitioner in ap no.808 of 2012, that such submission had been made on behalf of the applicant herein on january 18, 2013. it is also the recollection of the court that such submission had, indeed, been made. there is no use for this dishonest application being considered any further since the recording of fact in the firs.sentence of the order dated january 18, 2013 does not require to be revisited. out of sheer generosity nothing more is said. ga no.1057 of 2013 is dismissed with costs assessed at 3000 gm to be paid by the applicant herein to the petitioner in ap no.808 of 2012 and to the state legal services authority in equal share within a week from date. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) kc. 2

Full Judgment

GA No.1057 of 2013 AP No.808 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction CAPSTAN SHIPPING & ESTATES LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CAPSTAN) Versus MALAY KUMAR CHATTERJEE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

4. h April, 2013.

Appearance: Mr.P.K.

Roy, Adv.Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Moloy Kumar Ghosh, Adv.The Court : The submission made on behalf of the applicant herein was directed to be taken down as made and is reproduced hereinbelow: “Mr.Pramit Kumar Roy: It is the submission on the part of Malay Kumar Chatterjee that inasmuch as the award is signed by only one person and not signed by other person, the same may be corrected by remitting the matter back.

However, Mr.Chatterjee does not give consent to set aside the award in its entirety.”

This is an application for clarification of an order dated January 18, 2013, the opening sentence whereof reads as follows: “Even the respondent agrees that the award is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.”

It is the recollection of counsel appearing for the respondent herein and the petitioner in AP No.808 of 2012, that such submission had been made on behalf of the applicant herein on January 18, 2013.

It is also the recollection of the Court that such submission had, indeed, been made.

There is no use for this dishonest application being considered any further since the recording of fact in the fiRs.sentence of the order dated January 18, 2013 does not require to be revisited.

Out of sheer generosity nothing more is said.

GA No.1057 of 2013 is dismissed with costs assessed at 3000 GM to be paid by the applicant herein to the petitioner in AP No.808 of 2012 and to the State Legal Services Authority in equal share within a week from date.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc.

2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial