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.

Virgo Softech Ltd. and anr. Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Virgo Softech Ltd. and anr. vs Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 14, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1156309

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
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Virgo Softech Ltd. and anr.

Respondent

Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Excerpt

.....appearing for the appellants would draw our attention to prayer (i) appearing at page 21 where the respondent themselves asked for permission to collect the sum of rs.9.74 crores from the appropriate authority and submits, in case this amount is collected, the respondent may appropriate their claim and refund the balance sum to the appellant. learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit, the receiver already acted upon the said order and is about to submit his report on next thursday, i. e july 17, 2014 before the learned single judge. he also informs this court, the appellant did not cooperate with the receiver and the receiver could not take possession of any of the assets. learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, disputes such submission. the learned single judge passed an ad interim order giving direction for filing affidavits. considering the facts discussed above, we find, the appellants are absolutely at the primary stage of hearing, we are not inclined to interfere. the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, after treating the same as on day’s list, without any order as to costs. consequently, the application is also dismissed. the appellants may renew their prayer with regard to prayer (i) before the learned single judge at the time of final hearing. (banerjee, acj.) (arijit banerjee, j.) sd/

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET GA21102014 APOT3282014 AP15392013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE VIRGO SOFTECH LTD.& ANR.

Versus SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble MR.BANERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 14th July, 2014.

Mr.Mohit Gupta, Advocate Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Kaushik Chatterjee, Advocate Ms.Ruby Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent.

The Court : The appellants obtained appropriate financial support from the respondent to have various equipments required for IT Sector.

The money was not paid.

The appellants would contend, their money is blocked with the Central Government in the Aadhar Scheme.

A sum of Rs.9 crores and odd is due and payable from the Central Government.

The respondent would get only Rs.2.97 crores as would appear from page 157 of the application for stay.

The learned Judge appointed Receiver to take charge of all the assets that the appellant purchased with the financial support from the respondent.

Being aggrieved, the appellants have now come up in appeal before us.

Leaned Counsel appearing for the appellants would draw our attention to prayer (i) appearing at page 21 where the respondent themselves asked for permission to collect the sum of Rs.9.74 crores from the appropriate authority and submits, in case this amount is collected, the respondent may appropriate their claim and refund the balance sum to the appellant.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit, the Receiver already acted upon the said order and is about to submit his report on next Thursday, i.

e July 17, 2014 before the learned single Judge.

He also informs this Court, the appellant did not cooperate with the Receiver and the Receiver could not take possession of any of the assets.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, disputes such submission.

The learned single Judge passed an ad interim order giving direction for filing affidavits.

Considering the facts discussed above, we find, the appellants are absolutely at the primary stage of hearing, we are not inclined to interfere.

The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, after treating the same as on day’s list, without any order as to costs.

Consequently, the application is also dismissed.

The appellants may renew their prayer with regard to prayer (i) before the learned Single Judge at the time of final hearing.

(BANERJEE, ACJ.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) sd/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial