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.
Superintendent Company of India(P)ltd. Vs. Western Building Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court : C.S No. 343 of 1979 is a suit for administration of the Everest Building on Chowringhee near the Theatre Road crossing. An administrator has been appointed who has continued for nearly thirty years. From time to time the Interlocutory Court receives applications by agreement-holders in respect of flats at the said building seeking leave to have the conveyance executed through the administrator representing the owners. In the usual course, such leave is granted and in recent times at least three such applications have been made and allowed. EC No. 221 of 2010 is an execution application by persons claiming to be entitled to possession of about 570 sq. mt. on the roof of the building including a covered portion. The suit has been decreed and the appeal there from has failed. The Appellate Court has found that the decree-holders are entitled to possession and that the judgment-debtor administrator has no right to remain in possession in the portion of the premises claimed by t...
Sri Ranjit Kumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court : Instead of disposal of the interlocutory application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on days list. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2010 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court by which the Learned Single Judge refused to restore the writ application which was dismissed for default on September 10, 2002. Being dissatisfied the writ petitioners have come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent, we find that in the application for restoration it was alleged by the writ petitioner that one of the writ petitioners, namely, Ajit Ghosh, the elder brother was looking after the case on behalf of the others and as such the other writ petitioners had no knowledge about the particulars of the said writ application. The said Ajit Ghosh die...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Neel Kanth Earth Movers and Construction Co. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court: Leave is given to the Receiver to file his report by 6th of October, 2010. I have heard the Receiver. He has received an offer of Rs.16 lacs and odd from a purchaser for sale of the equipment in question. Earnest money of Rs.50,000/- has also been received. Even today the respondents are not appearing. It is submitted by the Receiver that the respondents had been present during the inventory and taking of possession of the equipment by him. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction and the Receiver are of the view that this price should be accepted. Accordingly leave is given to the Receiver to conclude the sale at such price. Such sale is to be concluded within a period of three months from date. The Receiver is to file account and further report. There upon the Receiver will stand discharged. The Receiver will first bring the sale proceeds into his bank account. After deducting expenses of sale and further remuneration of 600 GMs. the Receiver will hand ov...
Janakidas Ramkishan Vs. Cesc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court :-The petitioner is alleging inaction on the part of CESC. His case is that though he paid charge according to bill for supply of additional load, CESC has not taken steps for supplying him additional load. Counsel for CESC produces letters showing that the petitioner was requested to comply with the other conditions. There is nothing to show that the petitioner complied with the conditions mentioned in the letters of CESC. Payment of the bill was one of the conditions. CESC asked the petitioner to obtain refund of the amount he paid, if he was unwilling to comply with the other conditions. On these facts, I am unable to accept the allegation of inaction on the part of CESC. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed making it clear that the petitioner is free to comply with the conditions mentioned in the letters of CESC and request CESC to supply him additional load according to his requirement. No costs. Certified xerox. ...
Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. Vs. Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
This application has to be considered in detail. Therefore, list this application on 9th November, 2010 in the same position. However, it is submitted that the award is for about Rs.1 crore 40 lacs and it has not been challenged by the award debtor. Therefore, the award has become final. The award holder respondent has not put the award into execution. Considering the above equities, I pass the following order : [a] On the condition that the award debtor petitioner furnishes Rs.20 lacs in cash to the respondent award holder, they will not take steps through the Receiver and the Receiver will not take steps to sell the equipment till 11th November, 2010. The rest of the order dated 9th September, 2010 will remain in force ; [b] On the condition that the award debtor pays Rs.20 lacs in cash to the award holder respondent and furnishes a bank guarantee of Rs.60 lacs in their favour which ought not to be invoked by them without the leave of the Court, the award debtor/petitioner will be at...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court :-Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application. It is founded on a hire purchase agreement dated 9th May, 2008 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an excavator, the value of which is Rs.47,50,500/-. The equipment is lying in Haryana. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 17th March, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on the date of termination were Rs.17,74,208/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. This application is moved ex-parte on the apprehension that if notice of this application is given to the respondents, they would move the subject matter of the agreement outside the reach of this Court. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. Prayer (a) is limited in symbolic possession and inventory only. I appoint Mr. Tanmo...
Reliance Capital Ltd. Vs. Roadlines Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court :-Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application. It is founded on a loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 19th September, 2007 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is the chassis and bodies, the value of which is Rs.54,80,000/-. The chassis and bodies are lying in Nagaland. Due to default in payment of instalments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 7th October, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on the date of termination were Rs.54,80,000/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. This application is moved ex-parte on the apprehension that if notice of this application is given to the respondents, they would move the subject matter of the agreement outside the reach of this Court. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. Prayer (a) is limited in symbolic possession an...
Aditya Departmental Stores Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tamanna Merchants Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court : By this application under Sections 391[1] and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 it is prayed for that the meeting of shareholders of each of the applicant companies be dispensed with and that leave be given to such companies to file a confirmation petition. Such submission is made on the ground that the shareholders of each of the applicant companies have signified their consent which is brought on record in the petition. However, I am of the view that a meeting of the shareholders is to be held. Such meeting can be informal dispensing with formalities. I appoint Ms. Piyali Chatterjee, Bar Association, Room No.4, Advocate as Special Officer to hold an informal meeting of the shareholders of each of the applicants, to ascertain their consent and to file a report before this Court on the returnable date. This application is made returnable on 10th November, 2010. The Special Officer will be paid a remuneration of 600 GMs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of...
Khalid Perwez Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court :- After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the case stated in the petition, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to dispose of the art.226 giving suitable directions. The petitioner claims that claming right to office of mutawalli in terms of the wakfname he submitted an application to the Board in 2003, and that his application has not yet been disposed of. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that after illegally taking direct management of the wakf in 2004 the Board published the requisite notification only in, 2009 and that the five-year term specified by s.65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 having already expired, today the Board cannot keep the management of the wakf. According to him the petitioner, entitled to the office of mutawalli, has acquired a right to act as the mutawalli of the wakf. Counsel for the Board has submitted that the order under which the Board assumed direct management of the wakf was never challenged by the petitioner. His further sub...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rohtash Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
The Court :-Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application. It is founded on a hire purchase agreement dated 22nd May, 2008 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, whose value is Rs.85,00,000/-. The equipment is lying in Haryana. Due to default in payment of instalments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 9th September, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on the date of termination were Rs.60,38,877/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. Affidavit of service has been filed in Court. It is submitted that the respondents have been served, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. I appoint Mr. Hemonta Kumar Mitra, Bar Association, Room No.15 Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »