Kolkata Court April 2008 Judgments

In Re: Tata Tea Ltd.; in Re: Amalgamated Plantations P. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas236(Cal)

Patherya, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between Tata Tea Ltd. ('transferor company') and Amalgamated Plantation P. Ltd. ('transferee company') and their respective shareholders.Petitioners' case:2. The case of the applicants is that pursuant to advertisements the meeting of the shareholders was held. At the said meeting the scheme was approved by the requisite majority without any modification. The said will appear from the chairperson's report of the transferor and transferee companies.3. Twenty-seven advertisements were published and from the explanatory statement it will appear that documents were open for inspection including the quarterly financial results as on June 30, 2006, September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2006, of the transferor company.4. As the shareholders have approved the scheme of amalgamation without any modification and as held in A.W. Figgis and Co. P. Ltd. In re [1980] 50 Comp Cas 95 (Cal), the shareholders are the best judge ...

Smt. Mira Das Vs. Ms. Dipali Dey (Baxi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT269(HC)

Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties.2. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:The plaintiff/opposite party filed a Suit (T.S. 150 of 2001) against the petitioner praying for a declaration that the plaintiff/opposite party is a premises tenant in respect of the suit property under the defendant/petitioner, permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the opposite party from the suit property and/or creating any hindrance, obstruction in the peaceful possession of the opposite party and for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore water and electric supply line in the suit property in favour of the opposite party. In the said suit the opposite party moved an application for injunction for a direction upon the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity to the opposite party subject to payment of consumption charges. The petitioner contested the said application by filing written objection. The...

In Re: Joonktollee Enterprises Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas159(Cal),(2008)4CompLJ95(Cal)

Patherya, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation between petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and petitioner No. 8 and the scheme of arrangement between petitioner No. 8 and petitioners Nos. 5, 6 and 7.Petitioners' case:2. Pursuant to order passed the chairpersons were appointed to conduct the meeting of the shareholders of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and 8. Advertisements were issued in the respective dailies intimating all shareholders the dates of the meetings. Meetings of the shareholders of both petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 were held under the chairmanship of the chairpersons appointed by this hon'ble court. Meetings of the petitioners Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were dispensed with pursuant to the order passed. The schemes were put to vote and were passed unanimously without any modification. This will appear from the report of the chairperson filed in respect of the petitioner companies. Thereafter, once again advertisements were issued in the dailies with notice to the Cent...

ing Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008(4)JCR176(Cal)]

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Seeking quashing of the first information report relating to the Singur Police Station Case No. 178/2007 dated September 8, 2007 under Sections 403/409/411/414/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court moved the instant criminal revisional application.2. The foundation of the impugned FIR are as follows:(a) The complainant who happened to be the registered owner of the truck bearing No. W.B.-15-A-1788 purchased the said vehicle by obtaining a loan of Rs. 6.50 lakhs from the opposite party No. 1 ING Vyasya Bank Ltd. under a hire purchase agreement. The terms of repayment of the loan was by 47 equal instalments @ Rs. 16,457/- per instalment. The complainant out of total loan amount paid back Rs. 2,61.500/- to the accused-Banker and in addition to that spent Rs. 3 lakhs for making body and cabin of the driver and also paid the seed money of Rs. 56,200/- and further a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 7,000/-to the accused- ...

In Re: Tata Tea Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]88SCL170(Cal)

Patherya, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between Tata Tea Ltd. ('transferor-company') and Amalgamated Plantation P. Ltd. ('transferee-company') and their respective shareholders.Petitioners case:2. The case of the applicants is that pursuant to advertisements the meeting of the shareholders was held. At the said meeting the scheme was approved by the requisite majority without any modification. The said will appear from the chairperson's report of the transferor and transferee-companies.3. Twenty-seven advertisements were published and from the explanatory statement it will appear that documents were open for inspection including the quarterly financial results as on June 30, 2006, September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2006, of the transferor-company.4. As the shareholders have approved the scheme of amalgamation without any modification and as held in A.W. Figgis & Co. (P.) Ltd. In re [1980] 50 Comp. Cas. 95 (Cal.), the shareholders are the best judg...

Sibco Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Small Industries Development Bank of Indi ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]147CompCas166(Cal)

Indira Banerjee, J.1. The defendant is a statutory authority, constituted under the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989.On or about December 21, 1993, the defendant issued bonds in the form of promissory note called 13.50 per cent. SIDBI Bonds 2003 (4th series) on which interest was payable at 13.50 per cent. on June 21 and December 21, every year.2. Similar bonds in the form of promissory note called 12.50 per cent. SIDBI Bonds 2004 (5th series) on which interest was payable at 12.50 per cent. on June 21 and December 21, every year was issued by the defendant on December 21, 1994.The aforesaid bonds were transferable by endorsement and were of the face value of Rs. 10 lakhs each. The maturity date of the SIDBI Bonds (4th series) was December 21, 2003 and the maturity date of SIDBI Bonds (5th series) was December 21, 2004 respectively. The aforesaid bonds were freely traded in the security market.3. The plaintiff claims to have purchased, in usual course of its busines...

The State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sauvik Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Indira Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 5th July, 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition being W.P. No. 10645 (W) of 2005, filed the Respondent No. 1 herein, an Assistant Teacher of Physical Education of an aided non-government school, by directing the concerned District Inspector of Schools to refix the salary of the respondent No. 1, by granting him the higher post graduate scale of pay, from the date on which he had improved his educational qualification by acquiring the Master of Physical Education degree.2. The respondent No. 1 passed the Bachelor of Physical Education in the first class from the University of Kalyani in 1999. The Respondent No. 1, thereafter, took admission in the two-year post graduate course conducted by the University of Kalyani.3. In 1999 the Respondent No. 1 appeared for the Regional Level Selection Test conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission, Eastern Region, for appointment of Ass...

West Bengal Deed Writers' Association Nadia District Branch Vs. State ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT264(HC),2008(2)CHN926

1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. 2376(W) of 200ET whereby and whereunder the said learned single Judge finally disposed of the writ petition.2. West Bengal Deed Writers' Association, Nadia District Branch filed the writ petition for taking necessary steps by the respondents authorities so that the law clerks are not allowed to enter into the registration office or its compound to do any act or thing in connection with the registration of any document before the Registrar or Sub-Registrar.3. Mr. Bose, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner submits that apart from the licensed deed writers and advocate/solicitor, no one else can enter into the registration office for the purpose of presentation of any document.4. Mr. Bose, learned senior counsel of the appellant referred to and relied upon various provisions of t...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Maya Biswas and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT336(HC),[2008(118)FLR902]

1. This application initially is directed against three orders, namely, first one is dated 1st February 1999 passed by a Division Bench, second one is dated 27th of August 1999 passed by a learned single member, being the Hon'ble Chairman and the last order is dated 10th November 2006, passed in a contempt application. The first two orders were passed in the original applications, being O.A. 172 of 1995 and O.A. 626 of 1995. At the admission stage, on 12th of June 2007, we made it clear that we are not going to examine the legality and validity of the two orders dated 1st February 1999 and 27th of August 1999 as those orders were passed on contest by both the parties. This application was admitted for hearing to examine legality and validity of the last order which was passed on a contempt application. Upon perusal of the order dated 10th of November 2006 we find that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, no punishment was imposed and merely some directions were given. However, wheth...

Tarak Nath Das and ors. Vs. Manorama Chowdhury and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN976

1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for partition and is directed against Order No. 122 dated 26th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta by which the said Court arrived at a finding that it is a fit case for appointment of a Receiver but did not name the Receiver; the Court directed both the plaintiff and the defendant to give one name from their side for appointment of Receiver within one month from that date and it was further indicated that after getting the name of one person each from the side of the parties, the order of joint Receiver would be issued.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeal.3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this first miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure is a premature one.4. About a century ago, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upendra Nath Nag C...