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.
Hilton Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Gouripore Company Ltd. (In L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court :- This application is made by Ashray Vyapaar Private Limited. They seek vacation of a substantial part of my order dated 1st October, 2010. Their ground is that they are the assignees of the original secured creditors namely United Bank of India, Indian Bank, Allahabad Bank and IIBI. By such assignment, according to them, they are the only secured creditors. They feel aggrieved by the order directing sale of the movable goods of the company in liquidation. They are also aggrieved by the order for handing over of the title deeds as provided in prayer (e). Mr. Saha contends that these goods are jute goods and are lying in the premises of the company in liquidation since 1989. Hence, they are not perishable. If the title goods are handed over to the Official Liquidator it will prejudice their rights. I have heard the contention of Mrs. Sikder appearing for the Official Liquidator. These questions have to be gone into. On the above prima facie case I stay the order dated 1.10.20...
Partha Ghosh and anr. Vs. Pragati 47 Development Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court : This appeal against the order dated 1st October, 2010, passed by the Company Law Board is admitted. By consent of the parties, the appeal itself is disposed of by this order. lthough the order under appeal recites the respective contentions of the parties, there are no reasons in the order for not granting the interim reliefs prayed for in the application. If interim reliefs are prayed for and not granted, reasons ought to be provided for not granting it, after considering the established principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. As the order does not provide reasons, a question of law arises from such order. This order is set aside. The Company Law Board is directed to expeditiously pass an order in the interim application before it, with reasons. In the facts and circumstances, both the sides should be heard afresh before passing such order. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. All undertakings are discharged. All parties concern...
Super Fast Parcel Service (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court :- The case of the petitioners is that though they emerged as the highest bidder, for undisclosed reasons the respondents did not invite them for negotiation and participation in the ongoing process in which the other renderers are participating. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the case, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the petition. In my opinion, it will not be appropriate to make any interim order directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the process. For these reasons, I admit the petition and order that all steps taken by the respondents in the ongoing process shall abide by the result of the petition. The respondents shall file opposition within three weeks after the long vacation; reply, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. This order shall be communicated to the respondents within a week and affidavit of service showing compliance shall be filed at the time of hearing. List the matter f...
Sanjeevani Clinic Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sanjeevani Clinic Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The parties to the suit have agreed to the terms by which the suit can be disposed of, but a dispute has arisen between the plaintiff and advocate who had originally represented the plaintiff. The dispute relates to the bills raised by the advocate which have now been referred for adjudication or settlement by Mr. Sunil Mitra. The immediate urgency that the parties speak of is that unless the equipment under possession of the Receiver are made over to the defendants, the nursing home cannot function. The Receiver is also present and it is submitted by him that there are about 28 fixed deposits made with a certain bank that are to mature at different stages. The plaintiff says that the total matured value would be about Rs. 1 crore. The plaintiff says that since the bills presented by advocate originally representing the plaintiff are in the region of Rs. 10 lakh, the Receiver can hold a sum of Rs. 10 lakh and make over the balance payment to the plaintiff, subject to the outcome of the...
Ballygunge SarbojanIn Durgotsab Samity and anr. Vs. the Kolkata Munici ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
This writ petition is directed against the failure and/or refusal of the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to approve the lay out plan for erection of stalls during the Durga Puja, submitted by the petitioners. The petitioner society has been organising Durga Puja at the Deshapriya Park for the last 72 years. It appears that permission has been granted to erect a pandal for performing Durga Puja. The disputes are with regard to the setting up of stalls at Deshapriya Park for commercial purposes. The petitioner society claims that permission ought to be granted as per the lay out plan which, according to the petitioner society, has been submitted long ago. The park is owned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It is for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to decide whether or not to allow the setting up of stalls. It is immaterial that police clearance or clearance of the fire service authorities might have been obtained on the basis of the lay out plan. Such clearance does no...
Alliance Credit and Investments Ltd. Vs. Dharnendra Industries Ltd.and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court: The decree-holder is represented and the decree-holder says that in view of the settlement with the judgment debtor outside Court, the decree-holder has no further claim in respect of the decree. The decree-holder does not wish to proceed any further with E.C.No.104 of 2009 and submits that satisfaction of the decree should be recorded. The judgment-debtors are also represented and they corroborate the statement made on behalf of the decree-holder. It is submitted on behalf of one of the shareholders of the decree-holder company that the entire settlement with the judgment-debtors is fraudulent since the decretal debt is in excess of Rs.11 crore but the decree-holder has settled for an undisclosed smaller amount at the behest of persons now in control of the decree-holder company. One of the prospective purchasers, who had participated in the process following offers being invited for sale of some of the properties, also protested the settlement. In view of the decree-holder...
Babban Pandey Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court : The subject matter involved in this writ application is the inaction on the part of the Respondent/Bank releasing terminal benefits in favor of the petitioner. Today, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Bank submits that the gratuity, commutation of pension, arrear pension and monthly pension have been released in favor of the petitioner by an order dated September 13, 2010 passed by the Competent Authority. Let a copy of the above communication be kept on record. No objection is raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the above submission made on behalf of the Respondent/Bank. A prayer is made on behalf of the petitioner for granting interest for delayed payment of the terminal benefits to him. Considering the date of retirement of the petitioner and the cause of delay for releasing the terminal benefits, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting interest. In view of the above, no further order need be passed in this application. Thi...
Wb Precision Engineering Solution (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. C. D. Automation P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court :By consent of the parties this winding up application is disposed of by the following order. The company viz.WB Precision Engineering Solutions (P) Ltd. admits its liabilities to the extent of the principal amount claimed in this winding up petition for a sum of Rs.3,39,017/-. The company has agreed to pay the said sum to the petitioning creditor in the following manner: a) The company shall pay to the petitioning creditor a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only within three weeks from the date of this order by Bank Draft or Pay Order. b) The balance amount to Rs.1,89,017/- shall be paid by the company to the petitioning creditor by monthly installments of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) each only for a period of 9 months. The first of such installment will be paid by the company to the petitioning creditor on or before 20th October 2010 by Bank Draft or Pay Order and all the succeeding installment of Rs.20,000/- per month will be paid on or before 1...
Trafigura Beheer B.V. Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court : Today on the returnable date of this application, not only the respondent is represented but also M/s. Rashmi Metalics Ltd. It appears that the quantity of iron fines lying at Gangavaram port belongs to or is on the account of Rashmi Metalics Ltd. Although it is pleaded that the shareholders of this company and the respondent are common and control of both companies is by the same persons or a group of persons, there is no prima facie evidence before me at this stage to show that Rashmi Metalics Ltd. is holding the said goods as agent of the respondent. Further, prima facie there is immediately no case for specific performance of the subject contract for sale of goods between the parties. But considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is prima facie quite evident that at the time for performance, the respondent neither had the contracted quantity of iron fines in its possession nor was otherwise able to fulfill its export obligations towards th...
Ranjiv Nath Vs. Virendra Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court :- This appeal is entertained on the undertaking of the Advocate-on-record for the appellant to file an affidavit-of-service, which is said to have been already effected, in course of today. None appears for the respondent. It appears that in an application for recording the death of respondent no. 2 and for substitution in his place and stead of the respondent no. 3 being his alleged legal heirs and representatives, the Company Law Board has passed an order appointing special officers to manage the affairs of the company. Prima facie this is plainly not permissible. Therefore, this appeal is admitted as a question of law arises from the said impugned order of the Board dated 23rd September, 2010, the question of law being whether the Board was competent to pass such an order in a substitution application. It is submitted that all the papers of the tribunal are included in the stay petition. Therefore, let this appeal be heard on those papers. Let another notice be given by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »