Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 22, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1157635

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/1157635
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Arijit Banerjee
Decided On: Jul 22, 2014
Subject: Company

Case Summary

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

Company

Key legal issue: Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....petitioner has duly communicated the order dated 7th april, 2014 to the company. no affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the company. hence the matter has appeared as company matter adjourned (unopposed).nobody appears on behalf of the company even today. it appears that the company is not interested in contesting this petition. from the documents on record and from the company’s conduct it is clear that the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim. accordingly, this petition is admitted for a sum of rs.21,42,765/-. the said sum will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 1 july, 2013, till repayment. the company is granted opportunity to pay off the sum in three equal monthly instalments firs.of which would be payable on 10th august, 2014 and subsequent instalments on the tenth day of each subsequent months. there shall be an unconditional stay of this order till 10th august, 2014 and the stay shall continue provided the company pays its instalments as directed in this order. in default the stay shall stand vacated and the petitioner will be at liberty to publish advertisements once in ‘the statesman’ and once in ‘sambad pratidin’. the petitioner shall communicate this order to the company forthwith. the matter is made returnable eight weeks hence. (arijit banerjee, j.) bp. ar(cr)

Full Judgment

CP No.10 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: CAPRICORN ISPAT UDYOG PVT.LTD.-And KJ ISPAT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 22nd July, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Rima Das, Adv.Mr.A.P.

Agarwal, Adv...for the petitioner The Court : The petitioner supplied sponge iron to the company on 5th June, 2013 and 8th June, 2013 of the total value of Rs.21,42,765/-.

The company failed, neglected and refused to pay the price of the said goods.

The company acknowledged its liability to pay the said amount by putting its seal and signature on confirmation of accounts.

Since no payment was forthcoming, statutory notice dated November 27, 2013 was served on the company.

There was no reply to such notice.

Hence the present winding up petition.

On 7th April, 2014 this Court recorded an order that in spite of service nobody appeared on behalf of the company.

Direction was given for filing affidavits and the petitioner was directed to communicate the said order to the company.

It appears from the affidavit of service filed in Court that the petitioner has duly communicated the order dated 7th April, 2014 to the company.

No affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the company.

Hence the matter has appeared as company matter adjourned (unopposed).Nobody appears on behalf of the company even today.

It appears that the company is not interested in contesting this petition.

From the documents on record and from the company’s conduct it is clear that the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim.

Accordingly, this petition is admitted for a sum of Rs.21,42,765/-.

The said sum will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 1 July, 2013, till repayment.

The company is granted opportunity to pay off the sum in three equal monthly instalments fiRs.of which would be payable on 10th August, 2014 and subsequent instalments on the tenth day of each subsequent months.

There shall be an unconditional stay of this order till 10th August, 2014 and the stay shall continue provided the company pays its instalments as directed in this order.

In default the stay shall stand vacated and the petitioner will be at liberty to publish advertisements once in ‘The Statesman’ and once in ‘Sambad Pratidin’.

The petitioner shall communicate this order to the company forthwith.

The matter is made returnable eight weeks hence.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) bp.

AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Company Same Judge Arijit Banerjee