Kolkata Court October 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mariegold Industries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electric ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
The Court: This is a writ complaining of disconnection further to a demand dated 8th October, 2010 for Rs.5,33,549/-. It is submitted that the disconnection was made on 25th October, 2010. It is also submitted that on 25th October, 2010 the aforesaid sum was deposited by the petitioners with the respondent-licensee, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The learned Counsel for the respondent licensee is unable to confirm whether such sum has been received by his client. In the circumstances, this writ is disposed of by an order that if the petitioners have deposited such sum, the respondent licensee will reconnect electricity supply within 48 hours of service upon them of a copy of this order. If no deposit has been made no reconnection need be made. It will be open to the petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised against the demand notice or the determination of the electrical inspector, Under the Electricity Act, 2003, which issues are not decided in this app...
Sharwan Kumar Damani and ors.Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
The Court : One of the grounds in this writ application is that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has not dealt with the application of the petitioners before the Director General (Building). He was required to consider it and pass an order by 12th of October, 2010 by the Courts order dated 4th October, 2010. Instead fresh complaints have been filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with the police with regard to alleged illegal construction being made by the petitioner. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, assures the Court that no construction work will be done from today till further orders of the Court. He also submits that no construction work was being done in recent times. Therefore, I make this application returnable on 22nd of November, 2010 before the Regular Bench. In the meantime, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is to strictly comply with the earlier order of this Court dated 4th of October, 2010 in WP No. 1193 of 2010. Till 26th of November, 2010 ...
Ramsarup Industries Ltd. Vs. W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
The Court: Leave granted under Clause 12 of the letters patent subject to the question of maintainability. This is an application to restrain invocation of bank guarantees for a sum of Rs.6,35,77,499/- and Rs.1,12,47,552/- both dated 7th March, 2009 and valid till 6th March, 2012. These bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner in connection with a works contract with the respondent Corporation. It was terminated by the respondent no.1 on 5th of October, 2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner payments of Rs.9 crores or so are due to them by the respondent, Corporation which is immediately payable. Accordingly it is inequitable on their part to invoke the bank guarantee. I find from a perusal of the bank guarantee that it is an unconditional bank guarantee payable on demand. When a bank guarantee is unconditional and payable on demand, I do not think that pendency of any claim of the party, at whose instance the bank guarantee was furnished, against the beneficiar...
Sudesh Kumar Sonthalia Vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-28-2010
The Court: This is an application in aid of a writ petition. Both are being disposed of without calling for any affidavits. This is so because by a letter dated 20th October, 2010, which is annexure-F to the application in aid of the writ, the respondent corporation had threatened to take possession of the property in question on 25th October, 2010 at 1 p.m. Although it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that they have not taken possession on that day but the threat to take possession is imminent. It appears that this attempt to take possession is further to alleged termination of the lease by the respondent corporation. I confine the scope of this writ to the action contemplated in the above letter dated 20th October, 2010. In my opinion, the respondent No.1 cannot take possession in this fashion without recourse to law and without a specific order by an authority authorized by law permitting them to take possession. Therefore, the action contemplated by the letter dated 20th O...
Kamala Indra and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-2010
The Court : The petitioners complain of inaction of the police authorities to extend assistance to them for the purpose of repairing/renovating their premises when approached on being obstructed by their tenants who, allegedly, have no authority to do so. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate was approached by filing an application under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and despite there being direction on the police to ensure that no breach of peace takes place, the police has failed to act. It appears that order was passed by the learned Magistrate as far back as in 2008. The statutory period is already over. In my considered view, the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents is civil in nature and the ordinary laws of the country provide remedy for the petitioners. I am not inclined to exercise writ powers since public law element seems to be absent. It shall be open to the petitioners to pursue the channel of ci...
Rajani Rampuria Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-25-2010
The Court: The writ petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 13th September, 2010 from the respondent no.2 to her. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such letter was received during this vacation. The letter is annexure P-6 of the petition at page 32 and wants information from the writ petitioner about her bank account for refund of the above mentioned deposit. It is said that this deposit was the entire consideration paid by the writ petitioner as the intending purchaser for purchase of a plot of land from the said respondent in Rajar Hat described in the notice. An affidavit of service has been filed. It is stated that notice of this application along with the petition was posted to the respondents on 21st of October, 2010, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. However, considering the shortness of the notice I give the respondents another opportunity to appear. However, the prima facie case of the petitioner appears to be that this deposit...
New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Saatya Narayan Goyal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court:-This matter was listed today under the heading For Settlement upon being mentioned by Mr. Jain learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Jhunjhunwalla learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant Nos. 7 to 9. The mentioning was done on 5th October, 2010. When this matter was mentioned on 5th October, 2010 I had directed the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs to issue notice upon the learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6. In pursuance of such notice, Mr.Subhanshu Ganguly learned Advocate appears on behalf of the defendant no.1 and 6. Learned advocates appearing for the plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7 to 9 submits that the matter had been settled between their respective clients and the Terms of Settlement has been executed by them. The same has been filed in Court today. Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 does not have any objection if the Terms of Settlement is given effect to since as per his submission this settlement ...
M/S. Roy and Co. and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
A kerosene dealership agreement was executed between Indian Oil Corporation and the Partnership firm comprising of Smt. Siya Roy, Sri Binoy Roy and Smt Nisa Roy, as partners. Smt. Siya Roy died. Objections have been raised by the legal heirs of Smt. Siya Roy to continuance of the partnership business. Clause 46 of the dealership agreement provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the agreement, in the event of the dealer being a partnership firm, the agreement would automatically come to an end and stand terminated upon change of the constitution of the firm whether by retirement or death of any partner. Prima facie in view of the death of Smt. Siya Roy, the dealership agreement stands terminated. The partnership agreement binds the partners inter se and/or their legal heirs. The terms and conditions of the partnership agreement cannot override the dealership agreement with Indian Oil Corporation or cast any obligation on Indian Oil Corporation and/or the state responde...
Aurobnindo De Vs. Smt. Snati De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court: The plaintiff is the elder son of the first defendant and the elder brother of the second defendant. The suit is for rendition of accounts relating to a trust, enquiry into damages and injunction relating to a property on Robinson Street. The immediate grievance in the application is that the plaintiff does not have access to the premises, to the garden and to a room above the portico on the main building at the premises. The parties have agreed as follows: i) Accounts relating to the trust will be furnished by the first defendant to the plaintiff within the month following the accounting month. Accounts for the months of April, 2010 to September, 2010 will be furnished in November, 2010. Accounts for the previous financial years will be furnished by way of the relevant income tax returns being forwarded. The income tax returns for the period up to March 31, 2010 will be forwarded to the plaintiff by the first defendant within a period of three weeks from date. The income ta...
Girish Kumar Madhogaria and ors. Vs. Autech Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The application has been moved upon short notice to all the defendants. All the defendants save the defendant no. 5 are represented. It is the plaintiffs case that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the second and third defendants for acquiring complete control over the first defendant company and all its shares and properties. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 are in control of the first defendant company and the defendant nos. 6 and 7 are close relatives of the defendant nos. 2 and 3. According to the plaintiffs, the agreement envisaged that a sum of Rs. 20 lakh would be paid by the plaintiffs to the second and third defendants as consideration for their making over of shares in the first defendant company and the control thereof. The plaintiffs say that the agreement contemplated that the dues of the first defendant to the fourth defendant company would be attempted to be settled at or about Rs. 4.21 crore and, if the settlement amount was less than Rs. 4.21 crore, the differenc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »