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.
Zohra Commercial Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Kushal Chand Dugar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court : Leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is granted subject to compliance of necessary requirements. This is Section-9 application. It is moved ex parte on the apprehension that if notice of this application was received by the respondent, he would transfer or part with possession of the property in question. This application is founded on an agreement between the parties for sale of some properties in Jaipur described in Schedule-A to the agreement at Page-32 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner being the vendor has paid substantial consideration but the purchaser/Respondent is not ready and willing to complete the sale. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the claim in Arbitration would be restricted to execution of conveyance only. Therefore, at the moment, I pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent from transferring or parting with possession or otherwise dealing with the properties mentioned above till 12th November, 20...
M/S. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Vs. Presidency Exports and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court : This is an application for extension of time for the respondent company in the winding up application to furnish bank guarantee in terms of my judgement and order dated 11th August, 2010. It is submitted by Mr. R.Mitra, learned Counsel for the respondent company, that the bank guarantee has been brought to Court. In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioning creditor or its Advocate on record to accept such bank guarantee in course of today. I also pass an interim order restraining the petitioning creditor from publishing the advertisement. Time to file the suit is extended till 15th December, 2010. The order dated 1st October, 2010, is recalled. Order dated 11th August, 2010, is accordingly varied. The application is accordingly allowed. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings. ...
Uco Bank Vs. Panna Devi Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court: Following the earlier orders, the receiver had advertised for sale of some garments that belong to the judgment debtor. The judgment-debtor says that the offers received do not match the value of the goods. According to the judgment-debtor, the stock should be worth over Rs.6 lakh. The highest offer received is from one Uday Shankar Jaiswal for Rs.43,791/-. The offerer has increased the offer in Court to Rs.50,000/-. The sale of the goods in favour of the Uday Shankar Jaiswal is confirmed at Rs.50,000/- subject to the entire payment being received whereupon the goods will be made over on as is where is basis by the receiver to the highest offerer. The receiver will, however, receive the payment from Uday Shankar Jaiswal and make over the goods after a period of a week from date. It will be open to the judgment-debtor to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the receiver and obtain release of the goods in the interregnum. If the judgment-debtor fails to avail of this opportunity, the sal...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shahab Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court: A recent affidavit of service shows that the cause-papers despatched to the first judgment-debtor have returned with the endorsement left and the envelope issued to the second judgment-guarantor has returned with the endorsement not known. The addresses at which the papers were forwarded were the addresses indicated in the agreement. The decree-holder says that the best offer that has been received for the asset is of Rs.7 lakh privately obtained by the decree-holder for the excavator of 2007 make which had a cost price of Rs.16 lakh. The receiver is present in Court. The sale of the excavator is confirmed in favor of Sumit Yadav of Badshapur, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana (Mob. 9717840007) at Rs.7 lakh subject to the entire consideration being received. Since cheques of total value of Rs.7 lakh made out in favour of the receiver have been carried to Court today, the receiver will encase the cheques and pay off the amount to the decree holder. The receiver will close the relevant ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Gorakh Jagannath Khopade and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court: The judgment-debtors are not represented despite earlier service. The receiver has filed a report from which it appears that the best offer received for the asset in question is Rs.12.55 lakh though it has been valued at Rs.14 lakh. The decree holder says that no further offer has been received despite the decree-holders best efforts to obtain private offers. Accordingly, the sale of the excavator which was manufactured in 2008 and had a cost price of about Rs.23 lakh is confirmed in favour of Ashok Sakharam Jagtap of Aastapur, Haveli, Pune at Rs.12.55 lakh subject to the entire consideration being paid. The receiver will advise the highest bidder to make out a demand draft or bankers cheque or the like instrument in favour of the decree-holder and make over the same to the decree-holder. The receiver will hand over possession of the asset only after the entire consideration is received. The receiver will stand discharged after making over possession of the asset in question...
Nicco Uco Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Dharnendra Industries Ltd. and a ...
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.89 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 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 making ...
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ghosh Vs. Sanjeevani Clinic Pvt. Ltd. and ors
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...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Anas C. M. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
The Court: The judgment-debtors are not represented despite earlier service. The receiver has filed a report from which it appears that the best offer received for the asset in question is Rs.12.55 lakh though it has been valued at Rs.14 lakh. The decree holder says that no further offer has been received despite the decree-holders best efforts to obtain private offers. Accordingly, the sale of the excavator which was manufactured in 2008 and had a cost price of about Rs.23 lakh is confirmed in favour of Ashok Sakharam Jagtap of Aastapur, Haveli, Pune at Rs.12.55 lakh subject to the entire consideration being paid. The receiver will advise the highest bidder to make out a demand draft or bankers cheque or the like instrument in favour of the decree-holder and make over the same to the decree-holder. The receiver will hand over possession of the asset only after the entire consideration is received. The receiver will stand discharged after making over possession of the asset in question...
Ramayna Promoters Pvt. Ltd Vs. Mr. Sisisr Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court : On the basis of very fair submissions made onbehalf of both the parties to this litigation, this application isdisposed of by confirming the interim order dated 21st September,2010 by recording the statement of the learned Counsel appearingfor the respondent nos. 2 to 10 that his clients would not attendany shareholders meeting of the company or exercise any votingrights over the disputed shares.As no affidavit has been used, allegations contained in thepetition are not admitted.All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order onthe usual undertakings....
Family Credit Ltd. Vs. Global Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court : This is a Section 9 application founded on an agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause. The respondent in this application is the manufacturer of 71 vehicles which are the subject matter of this application. The petitioner is the financer. It appears that the petitioner has taken possession of these vehicles from various customers. The dispute between the parties is that the respondent is not taking back the vehicles according to Article 3(f) of the agreement. According to the learned Counsel representing the respondent, the vehicles were not taken back by them for two reasons 1) some of them had missing parts; 2) the documents of the vehicles cannot be produced by the petitioner. He states that if the short comings are overcome by the petitioner, his client would take back the vehicles. His statement is recorded. In any case, this kind of dispute cannot be resolved at this stage. Affidavit in opposition is to be filed by 18th November, 2010. List this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »