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.
Parijat Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. J. Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court :- After hearing the submissions of Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury and Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing in support of this application for setting aside the decree in question and the plaintiff respectively, the following direction is given for affidavits for adjudication of the application on merits. Let the affidavit-in-opposition be used by 12 November 2010; the affidavit-in-reply, if any, 22 November 2010 and the matter will appear as an Adjourned Motion on 23 November 2010 within the first five matters in the list. Mr. Chowdhury, however, makes a statement that during the pendency of this application or at least until further hearing, the 2nd defendant, who has applied for setting aside the decree in question, namely the petitioner will not deal with the immovable properties in question, the particulars of which are mentioned at page 27 of the petition in any manner whatsoever. In view of this statement, although Mr. Ghosh submits that the application should only be hea...
Rlj Feero Alloys Pvt Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court: The plaintiff challenges a notice issued by the first defendant inviting the plaintiff to nominate a conciliator for conciliation proceedings in terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff says that there is no question of any conciliation since the subject matter of the disputes between the parties is already before Court and since a written statement has been filed by the first defendant. The first defendant says that it has applied for revocation of the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters of Patent, inter alia, on the ground that there is a forum selection clause that governs the plaintiff and the first defendant and since the suit is otherwise barred by law. Affidavit-in-opposition to the present application may be filed within a fortnight after the reopening following the puja vacation; reply thereto, if any, within a week thereafter. All applications in the suit including G.A.No.2347 of 2009 and G.A.No.3134 of 2010 will ...
Adding Machine [i] Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Companies, West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court: It has been admitted in the affidavit in opposition filed by the Central Government, that the procedure under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, has not been followed before striking off the name of the company from the register of the Registrar of the Companies. Three notices are contemplated in such Section and the sub-Sections there under before such action can be taken. In view of the above procedural irregularity, the decision to remove the name of the company from the register is set aside. However, this will not preclude the Registrar from taking fresh action in accordance with law, as is available to him. This application is accordingly allowed. Affidavit filed by the Central Government in Court today is taken on record. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Subimal Chakraborty Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
At the time of hearing of the present appeal preferred against an order refusing to grant any interim relief in the writ-application passed by a learned Single Judge, we decided to hear out the writ-application itself as the fate of the writ-application depended upon the answers to the same questions of law, which are also the points involved herein. In the writ-application, the writ-petitioner/appellant, a Fair-Price-Shop owner, has challenged an order dated 30th June 2010, passed by the Director of Rationing, West Bengal. By the said order, the Director of Rationing, in exercise of power conferred under paragraph-26 of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order), imposed punishment of not only the forfeiture of the entire security deposit made by the writ-petitioner but also delinking of 2,000 APL adult ration cards from the shop in question in the interest of general public & PDS. It appears f...
Akash Kumar Baheti. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The petitioner has obtained a lease of parcel space in the luggage van of Kanchanjangha Express. In terms of the lease agreement, the petitioner is entitled to transport goods weighing upto 23 Tonnes. According to the petitioner, on or about 20th September, 2010, the petitioner loaded a consignment of 224 bags of betel nuts from Guwahati to Sealdah by Kanchanjangha Express. It is pleaded that the goods arrived at Kolkata on 21st September, 2010. By a letter dated 22nd September, 2010, the respondent authorities contended that the goods were 10.82 M.T. in excess of the permissible carrying capacity of 23 Tonnes. In the letter of the Railways dated 22nd September, 2010, it is stated that the consignment was detected to have net weight of 33.82 M.T. in the in motion weigh bridge of the Railways. The petitioner disputes the weighment. Circular No.2006/TC(FM)/11/16 dated 11th December, 2006 provides as follows : Some instances of disputes about correctness of weighment done by the Railways ...
Gobinda Chandra Dey and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Kolkata Municipal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
THE COURT : Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that his clients arre willing to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh for the time being towards payment of the alleged dues of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He prayed that KMC may be directed to consider his representation dated 20th November, 2009 a copy whereof is Annexure P4 to the petition appearing at page 47 thereof. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties the petitioners are granted liberty to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh with KMC and KMC on its part shall consider the representation dated 20th November, 2009 and shall pass an appropriate reasoned order after hearing the affected parties. Liberty to mention for further hearing after the aforesaid exercise is over. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. ...
Jenifer Ann Fowler Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court : Mr. Das submits that he is not in a position to say why the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Central Government has not decided the petitioners representation dated May 28, 2010 ( at page 59 ). He says that there is no reason for the respondents to admit the allegations made in the petition. Mr. Talukdar has said that the petitioners mother is 89, and that under the peculiar circumstances the petitioner has to visit India taking a tourist visa. He says that for undisclosed reasons the Ministry of Home Affairs has not disposed of the petitioners request for extension of residential permit. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the nature of grievance, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to decide the petitioners representation dated May 28, 2010 immediately. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. The Ministry of Home Affairs ( Foreigners Division ) of the ...
Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court : The suit is for damages where the plaintiff claims that the goods that the plaintiff had asked for were not those that were ultimately supplied by the defendant. The defendant suggests that the suit is bogus and a counter-blast to a notice issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant says not only has the written statement including a counter-claim been filed, documents have been discovered and there is no impediment to the plaintiff taking expeditious steps for the trial of the suit. The plaintiff says that the computer hardware that was supplied by the defendant is occupying valuable space in the plaintiffs office. The plaintiff seeks a Receiver over and in respect of the goods with a direction on the Receiver to dispose of the same on such basis as may be directed by Court. The limited order sought cannot prejudice the defendant in any manner, particularly, since the proceeds realized from the sale of the goods will be required to be made over to th...
Narendra Kumar Berlia and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Berlia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-2010
The Court : G.A. No. 624 of 2009 is an application by the third defendant seeking reference of the suit to mediation. To begin with, prayer (a) seems not to be in order. There is no mediation centre, unfortunately, which has been established by this Court. In any event, no mediation is possible since some of the parties do not agree to it and the animosity between the parties is such that an attempt at mediation may be a futile exercise. G.A. No. 624 of 2009 is dismissed without any order as to costs. G.A. No. 625 of 2009 is another application by the third defendant seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem in respect of the eighth defendantt appears to be the fairly admitted position that the eighth defendant is both physically and mentally challenged. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 claim that the eighth defendant has always lived with the first and second defendants and none of the other parties has cared for the eighth defendant. Such position is disputed by the third defendant. T...
Dr.Sunil Kumar Mondal Vs. Gora Chand Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
THE COURT : Today, it is submitted by the learned Special Officer that after conducting three inspections in the area in question, the members of his committee prepared a report. Two applications, bearing CAN Nos. 8877 of 2010 and 8939 of 2010, have been filed in WP No. 10618(W) of 2010 by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 and by the writ petitioner respectively. According to the learned Counsels appearing for the aforesaid parties, consideration of their objections by the learned Special Officer is required. A similar application, bearing GA No. 3115 of 2010, is filed in WP No. 607 of 2010 by the writ petitioner. The above three applications are taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties treating those applications as on days list. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and after consideration of the submissions made by them, the aforesaid three applications are disposed of giving liberty to the respective parties to lodge their objections with rega...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »