Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: p c sen and · Page 1 of about 237 results (0.230 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Nov 17 2006

Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Descon Ltd. and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-17-2006

Subject : CompanyCivil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 77A, 77B, 81(1A), 173(2) and 209A; ;Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Reported in : 2007(3)CHN287

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, ;P. Ray and ;Raj Ratna Sen, Advs. for Respondent No. 1 and ;S.B. Mukherjee and S.C. Bagari, Advs. for Respondent No. 2

Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The present interlocutory motion, being G. A. No. 1745 of 2006 is taken out by the petitioner primarily to prevent the respondent, DESCON LIMITED, from issuing equity shares on preferential basis, upto a...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 26 1992

Molla Sirajul Haque and Etc. Vs. Gorachand Mullick and Others

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-26-1992

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 107(2) and 141 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 21 - Order 23, Rule 3;; Constitution of India - Article 134A;; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 105;; Indian Contract Act, 1872

Reported in : AIR1993Cal58,(1993)1CALLT16(HC),1992(2)CHN95,97CWN520

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, ;Dipak Basu, ;B.S. Sinha Roy, ;N.K. Nandi, Bimal Chatterjee, ;C. Banerjee, ;M. Singh, ;P.N. Roy, Shyam Sarkar and ;A.C. Mukherjee, Advs.

ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C. J.1. Facts necessary for the disposal of the application before us have been succinctly stated by Ray, J. in his judgment hereinafter following. The questions of law involved have also been...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 10 2005

Universal Petro Chemicals Limited Vs. Bp P.L.C. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-10-2005

Subject : Civil

Acts : Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973

Reported in : (2005)2CALLT405(HC),2005(2)CHN239

Advocate for Respondent : D.N. Sharma, Adv. for defendant No. 1, ;P.C. Sen, Siddhartha Mitra and Padam Khaitan, Advs. for defendant No. 2 and ;Sudipto Sarkar, Mausumi Bhattacharyay and Padam Khaitan, Advs. for defendant No. 3

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. Universal Petro Chemicals Limited (Universal in short) institutes this suit, inter alia, praying for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from marketing in India any lubricant...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Nov 16 1971

In Re: Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-16-1971

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 17 and 17(3)

Reported in : [1973]43CompCas162(Cal)

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen. Adv.

ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This is an application for the confirmation by the court of the special resolution passed by the above named company relating to the proposed change of its registered office from Calcutta...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 20 1995

Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-20-1995

Subject : CivilArbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14, 20 and 41; ;Specific Relief Act - Sections 38 to 42

Reported in : (1996)1CALLT214(HC)

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, ;Hirak Mitra, ;Sudipta Sarkar and ;Monoj Roy, Advs.

Shyamal Kumra Sen, J.1. The facts in short in respect of the application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act are that the petitioner company has its factory at Choudwar which is a 100% Export Oriented...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 19 1979

Tapan Kumar Paul Vs. Krishna Kanta Paul and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-19-1979

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30

Reported in : AIR1980Cal28

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, ;S.K. Upadhya, Advs. (for No. 1), ;R.C. Nag, ;Sankar Ghose, ;Avijit Dev, Advs. (for Nos. 2 and 3), ;S.B. Mukherjee, ;Ruma Paul, Advs. (for No. 4), ;Somnath Chatterjee and ;U. Mukherjee, Advs

ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the award dated 30th of Jan. 1978 made by one Shri A. K. Sen, Barrister-at-Law. The award and...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 16 1981

Shib Nath Paul Vs. Jaharlal Paul and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-16-1981

Subject : Property

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1; ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 44

Reported in : AIR1982Cal143

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv. (for No. 1) and ;Swapan Mallik, Adv. (for No. 2)

C.K. Banerji, J. 1. In this interlocutory application the appellant is asking, inter alia, for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1, his servants, agents and assistants from parting with possession of the vacant portion of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 21 1984

Nripendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-21-1984

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 159 and 162

Reported in : [1985]58CompCas672(Cal),88CWN850

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv.

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. 1. This application arises out of complaints filed by the Registrar of Companies, being Case Nos. C/2083/82, C/2085/82, C/2103/82, C/2112/82, C/2138/82, C/2146/82, C/2151/82 and C/2163/82 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 18 1980

Sishu Ranjan Dutta and anr. Vs. Bhola Nath Paper House Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-18-1980

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(13), 2(26), 43A, 267, 268, 269, 317, 320, 397, 398 and 402

Reported in : [1983]53CompCas883(Cal)

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen and ;Hirak Mitter, Advs. for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and ;Pratap Chatterjee, Adv. for respondent Nos. 6 and 7

Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 397, 398, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, for the appointment of a Special Officer and/or Administrator and for an order or direction to...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 09 1985

East Indian Produce Ltd. Vs. Naresh Acharya Bhaduri and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-09-1985

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 255, 256, 284, 372, 372(1) and 372(4); ;Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 13 and 16

Reported in : [1988]64CompCas259(Cal)

Advocate for Respondent : Bimal Chatterjee, Adv. for respondent No 1, ;S.B. Mukherjee and ;Anindya Mitra, Advs. for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 7, ;P.C. Sen and ;Jayanta Mitra, Advs. for respondent No. 6

R.N. Pyne, J. 1. The appellant, East Indian Produce Ltd., has made this application in an appeal filed by it against an ad interim order dated December 5, 1984, of C. K. Banerjee J. whereby his...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial