Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 04, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061272

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1061272
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Sanjib Banerjee
Decided On: Jul 04, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

ca no.455 of 2012 cp no.636 of 2011 in the high court at calcutta original jurisdiction in the matter of : m/s loomtex engineering pvt.ltd.-andnaranarayan sarkar & ors.before: the hon'ble justice sanjib banerjee date :4. h july, 2012. appearance: mr.joy saha, adv.the court : none appears to oppose ca no.455 of 2012. the application is by the company for recalling the order dated may 17, 2012 admitting the creditors’ winding-up petition. the petition has not yet been advertised. the creditors are workmen of the company. the creditors were represented on a previous occasion and it had been submitted that the dues of the creditors had been paid off, as a result whereof the creditors had not taken steps for publishing the advertisements. the applicant says that there is a letter at page 499 of the affidavit in support of the summons relating to ca no.455 of 2012 evidencing that the entire dues of the workmen have been cleared. the matter was adjourned since it was submitted on a previous occasion on behalf of the workmen that they were entitled to a sum of rs.50,000/by way of costs in respect of some other proceedings. it is submitted by the company that the costs have been tendered and the company has carried a document in support of such assertion. let a copy of the document dated july 3, 2012 be kept with the papers.ca no.455 of 2012 is allowed by recalling the order dated may 17, 2012 by which cp no.636 of 2011 had been admitted and had been directed to be advertised. cp no.636 of 2011 is also permanently stayed. there will be no order as to costs. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) bp. a.r(c.r)

Full Judgment

CA No.455 of 2012 CP No.636 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF : M/S LOOMTEX ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.-ANDNARANARAYAN SARKAR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

4. h July, 2012.

Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.The Court : None appears to oppose CA No.455 of 2012.

The application is by the company for recalling the order dated May 17, 2012 admitting the creditors’ winding-up petition.

The petition has not yet been advertised.

The creditors are workmen of the company.

The creditors were represented on a previous occasion and it had been submitted that the dues of the creditors had been paid off, as a result whereof the creditors had not taken steps for publishing the advertisements.

The applicant says that there is a letter at page 499 of the affidavit in support of the Summons relating to CA No.455 of 2012 evidencing that the entire dues of the workmen have been cleared.

The matter was adjourned since it was submitted on a previous occasion on behalf of the workmen that they were entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/by way of costs in respect of some other proceedings.

It is submitted by the company that the costs have been tendered and the company has carried a document in support of such assertion.

Let a copy of the document dated July 3, 2012 be kept with the papeRs.CA No.455 of 2012 is allowed by recalling the order dated May 17, 2012 by which CP No.636 of 2011 had been admitted and had been directed to be advertised.

CP No.636 of 2011 is also permanently stayed.

There will be no order as to costs.

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

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.

A.R(C.R)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2012 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Sanjib Banerjee