Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 15, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1155901

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/1155901
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Nadira Patherya
Decided On: Jul 15, 2014
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

order sheet ca no.187 of 2014 with cp no.179 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta original jurisdiction in the matter of : jessop and co.ltd.and subrata kumar biswas and jessop & company ltd.. . applicant. before: the hon'ble justice patherya date : 15th july, 2014. mr.jishnu saha, sr.adv., mr.madhu sudan sarkar, mr.avik dhar for petitioning creditor. mr.utpal bose, sr.adv., ms.urmila chakraborty, ms.ruby jaiswal for the company. the court : the 37 supporting creditors seek an order as passed on 8th july, 2014 in favour of murli raj bhar that is to direct the company to secure its claim on account of gratuity by creating fixed deposits. such order would have been passed if the case of the 37 supporting creditors was similar to that of murli raj bhar. in the case of murli raj bhar two several cheques amounting to the sums on account of gratuity had been issued which were dishonoured. therefore, the claim crystallised and the amount was undisputed. it is only for this reason the order dated 8th july, 2014 was passed. such is not the case in respect of the 37 supporting creditors as no cheque has been issued by the company in favour of the said supporting creditors nor has the claim been admitted. petition in fact, which was each of the disallowed by 37 supporting order dated creditors 3rd had february, filed 2014. company pursuant thereto the 37 supporting creditors have filed their claim with the controlling authority under the 1972 act. therefore, as adjudication is awaited no order can be passed in respect of the said 37 supporting credit ors.as the dues of the petitioning creditor on account of advertisement cost and interest remains unpaid, the company petition cannot be permanently stayed this day and for such purpose matter is directed to appear on 18th july, 2014 as “for orders”. urgent certified photocopy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( patherya, j.) pa

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET CA No.187 of 2014 With CP No.179 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : JESSOP AND Co.LTD.AND SUBRATA KUMAR BISWAS AND JESSOP & COMPANY LTD..

Applicant.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 15th July, 2014.

Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Madhu Sudan Sarkar, Mr.Avik Dhar for petitioning creditor.

Mr.Utpal Bose, Sr.Adv., Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Ms.Ruby Jaiswal for the company.

The Court : The 37 supporting creditors seek an order as passed on 8th July, 2014 in favour of Murli Raj Bhar that is to direct the company to secure its claim on account of gratuity by creating fixed deposits.

Such order would have been passed if the case of the 37 supporting creditors was similar to that of Murli Raj Bhar.

In the case of Murli Raj Bhar two several cheques amounting to the sums on account of gratuity had been issued which were dishonoured.

Therefore, the claim crystallised and the amount was undisputed.

It is only for this reason the order dated 8th July, 2014 was passed.

Such is not the case in respect of the 37 supporting creditors as no cheque has been issued by the company in favour of the said supporting creditors nor has the claim been admitted.

petition In fact, which was each of the disallowed by 37 supporting order dated creditors 3rd had February, filed 2014.

company Pursuant thereto the 37 supporting creditors have filed their claim with the Controlling Authority under the 1972 Act.

Therefore, as adjudication is awaited no order can be passed in respect of the said 37 supporting credit ORS.As the dues of the petitioning creditor on account of advertisement cost and interest remains unpaid, the company petition cannot be permanently stayed this day and for such purpose matter is directed to appear on 18th July, 2014 as “For Orders”.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( PATHERYA, J.) pa

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Nadira Patherya