Kolkata Court September 2009 Judgments

Adi Jogesh Radio and anr. Vs. State of W.B. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal25

ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. The short grievance of the petitioners is that within five days of the respondent bank issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, it issued a letter to the petitioners informing them that certain fixed deposits and other collateral securities had been encashed.2. The petitioners raise a legal issue. According to the petitioners, since Section 13(2) of the Act provides a 60 day period for a noticee to revert to the bank, a secured creditor cannot be permitted to encash deposits or other collateral security furnished by the constituent in the interregnum.3. Section 13 is at the heart of the said Act and provides the manner of enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor. Section 13(2) of the Act requires a secured creditor to issue notice to a defaulting borrower, who is under a liability to the secured creditor under a security agreement, to enable ...

Hindusthan National Glass and Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Reserve ...

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The writ petitioners question a decision of April 7, 2009 by the grievance redressal committee of the respondent private bank declaring the petitioner company to be a willful defaulter within the meaning of a Reserve Bank of India master circular dated July 1, 2008. There are several levels on which the challenge has been launched. The petitioners allege that the master circular is unconstitutional and, in any event, the grievance redressal mechanism contemplated there under is a meaningless, facile exercise. They say that even if the master circular is upheld in its entirety, the relevant committee of the bank may still be found to have acted without jurisdiction since the master circular applies to lender-borrower transactions between a bank and another; and, the nature of the agreement which is the subject matter of the proceedings did not involve a lender-borrower relationship between the bank and the petitioner company. The petitioners also allege violation ...

Prasanta Kumar Shee Vs. Amrita Kumar Bera and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th April, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Contai, District-Midnapore in Title Suit No. 143 of 1994 thereby dismissing the said suit.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.3. The appellant before us, as plaintiff, filed in the Second Court, Assistant District Judge, Contai, District Midnapore, a suit being Title Suit No. 143 of 1994 thereby praying for partition of his one-sixth share in respect of the suit property and this case may be summed up thus:a) The suit property belonged to Upendra Nath Shee and Kshirode Chandra Shee having 8 annas share each, and while in such enjoyment and possession, Kshirode died and after his death, his wife Apurba Sundari acquired his 8 annas share and she was in enjoyment and possession of the same jointly with Upendra.b) Whi...

Sri Shambhu Bag Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Appellant was a labour working under the respondent No. 2 being the owner of the tractor having Registration No. WB-41A/4497. He used to earn Rs. 2,100.00 per month. On July 13, 2002 at about 12:30 he was proceeding towards Bankura More travelling by the said tractor. The said tractor overturned sustaining severe injury to the appellant. Ultimately he lost his left leg which was amputated. He was admitted in Burdwan Hospital. After his discharge from the Hospital he took medical treatment from the Outdoor Department of the Hospital. He claimed that he incurred expense to the extent of Rs. 30,000.00-35,000.00 on account of medical treatment. During cross-examination the appellant deposed that a trailer was attached to the tractor at the time of accident. The Insurance Company denied their liability on the ground that the trailer did not have insurance cover. The Tribunal ultimately assessed the compensation and directed the owner to pay the same by absolving t...

Sri Tarak Nath Ray Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. On August 28, 2000 at about 12:30 p.m. when the appellant was driving his scooter he was hit by an Andul bound Minibus from Howrah being W.B. 15/2490 because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Minibus. The appellant sustained serious injury all over his body. He was removed to a private nursing home where he was treated. He suffered great pain and agony. He claimed to be forty seven years old having business income of Rs. 1,21,795.00 per annum. He spent Rs. 15,000 for his medical treatment.2. In the above backdrop the appellant filed a claimed petition, inter alia, praying for a sum of Rs. 3 lacks against the Minibus owner and the Insurance Company covering the risk. The owner did not contest the case. The Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the claim. The other Insurance Company covering the risk of the scooter also filed written statement denying its liability. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the rival pleadi...

Sri Susanta Mondal Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant was a vegetable dealer. He was travelling by the offending vehicle towards Ghatal for purchasing vegetable for his business. The vehicle dashed a truck whose identity could not be established. Due to such accident the appellant sustained injury. He was treated as an indoor patient for couple of weeks in the hospital. Later on he was treated by a private hospital. He claimed that he was permanently disabled to the extent of twenty five per cent. He was twenty five years on the date of accident earning Rs. 100 to Rs. 110 per day. In this backdrop, he filed a claim petition inter alia, claiming a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compensation. The Insurance Company opposed the claim. The owner did not come forward to contest the claim. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant to the extent that he was involved in the accident sustaining injury. However, while granting compensation the Tribunal applied the structured formula by taking a notional ...