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.
Sant Bux Singh Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
THE COURT : Counsel for the Respondent-Kolkata Municipal Corporation today files a supplementary report. Let copies of the same be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner and the other appearing respondents. It is submitted that the Municipal Corporation is scrutinizing the cases in terms of the directions issued by this Court and the whole exercise would take some time. Let the matter be listed after Puja vacation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Municipal Corporation has initiated steps in the matter but it is not upto the expectation and there has not been compliance yet with the orders passed by this Court. It is also submitted that the method adopted by the Municipal Corporation is not satisfactory and the Court should pass further orders giving directions to the Municipal Corporation to initiate criminal proceedings at least against the persons who have been found responsible for disbursing money regarding age-old pension against persons who hav...
irc Vanijya Private Ltd. Vs. Avian Overseas Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court : That a meeting of the Equity Shareholders of IRC VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, being the applicant no.1 above named shall be convened and held at 60, Bentinck Street, (4th Floor) Kolkata 700 069, on Monday, the 22nd day of November, 2010 at 4:15 P.M. for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant no.1 with the Applicant no.2 above named. That a meeting of the Equity Shareholders of AVIAN OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED, being the applicant no.2 above named shall be convened and held at 60, Bentinck Street, (4th Floor) Kolkata 700 069, on Monday, the 22nd day of November, 2010 at 4:30 P.M. for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant no.1 with the Applicant no.2 above named. In view of written consent given by all the shareholders of the Applicants the advertisement of notice of the meeting...
State of Westbengal and anr. Vs. Sati Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court : A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26th September, 2008 referred the following question to the Honble Chief Justice for the purpose of constitution of a larger Bench : Whether the provisions contained in Section 47A of the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act read with Rule 3 of the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules 2001 are applicable to an instrument executed pursuant to an order of sale passed by a Civil Court in a suit for partition which is conducted by a Receiver appointed by the Civil Court, by auction, after publication in newspapers. The said question has been answered in negative by the Special Bench vide order dated 13th May, 2010 subject to the conditions, a) there must be wide publicity of the proposed sale and particularly, there shall be publication of advertisement in at least one newspaper having wide circulation in the concerned city/town/district; b) the purchaser of the property must not be connected wi...
Patton International Ltd. Vs. Patton Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court : Each of the Equity Shareholders of both the Applicant Companies has given written consent to dispense with the meeting of the shareholders of the Applicant Companies for the purpose of considering and approving the proposed Scheme of Arrangement and have also consented to the proposed Scheme of Arrangement of the Applicant Company No.1 with the Applicant Company No.2. However, a meeting has to be held by the said shareholders of the Applicant Company No.1 and Applicant Company No.2 in accordance with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. In my opinion such meeting can be informal, dispensing with all formalities. Mr. P.N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Bar Library Club, be appointed as a Special Officer for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the shareholders of both the Applicant Companies in relation to consenting and/or approving the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. The Special Officer shall meet the Equity Shareholders and shall file his report before the Court by 10th Nove...
Trafigura Beheer B.V. Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court: Leave under Clause 12 of the letters patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application. It is founded on an agreement dated June 24, 2010 amended on August 24, 2010, between the parties and containing an arbitration clause. The agreement was for international sale of iron fines by the respondent to the petitioner, from India. Breach of that agreement is complained of. It is submitted that 40000 MTs of such iron fines which are the subject matter of this agreement are attempted to be exported by the respondent to some other parties outside India. It is further submitted that these goods are not readily available and have special value. More so, for the reason that the petitioner is importing these goods to fulfill its contractual obligations with other international parties. if these goods are exported out of India the petitioner will not readily get them to fulfill its said other obligations. Hence, an order is sought to restrain the responde...
Srestha Vinyog Private Ltd. Vs. Rksk Steel India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
THE COURT : Each of the Equity Shareholders of both the Applicant Companieshas given written consents to dispense with the meetings of the shareholders ofthe Applicant Companies for the purpose of considering and approving the proposedScheme of Amalgamation and has also consented to the proposed Scheme ofamalgamation of the Applicant No. 1 with the Applicant no. 2 and their respectiveshareholders.However a meeting has to be held by the said shareholders of the respectiveApplicant Companies in accordance with Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Inmy opinion such meeting can be informal dispensing with all formalities.Mr. S.P. Ghose, Bar at Law, be appointed as a Special Officer for thepurpose of ascertaining the views of the shareholders of the Applicant Nos. 1 and2 in relation to consenting and/or approving the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation.The Special Officer shall meet the Equity Shareholders on Tuesday, the 5thOctober, 2010 at 4.30 p.m. at 10, K.S. Roy Road, 2nd Floor, Room No...
Sri Virendra Nath Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court :- Counsel has submitted that the petitioner in this art.226 petition needs orders for two purposes: for directing the police to make proper investigation on the basis of the FIR already registered; and for directing the police to give the petitioner necessary protection so that he may enter his shop on the strength of the interim order made by the Company Law Board. As to investigation, I am of the view that if the petitioner has any reason to say that the investigating officer has not been investigating the matter properly, then he should bring the matter to the notice of the Magistrate concerned. There is no reason for the High Court to exercise power under art.226 for monitoring the investigation, if it is still in progress. In so far as the question of police protection is concerned, it is not the case that in spite of order of the Company Law Board directing the police to give the petitioner necessary protection so that he may enter the shop in question, the police have...
Perviz John Colah and ors. Vs. the Administrator General, West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court : The petitioners have applied under Section 25 of the Official Trustees Act for a direction on the official trustee to hand over possession of an immovable property which is the subject-matter of trust. The petitioners have also sought accounts and for the residue funds to be handed over to the petitioners. One Kakey Sorabjee Colah was the owner of the property which is now numbered as 221, A.J.C. Bose Road. Pursuant to terms of settlement filed in a matrimonial suit by wife Khorshed Kakey Colah on January 14, 1937, it was agreed that the said property would form part of the settlement for the maintenance of the wife and her daughters and would be transferred, free of all encumbrances, by Kakey to the official trustee. By a deed of trust of May 6, 1941, the said property was transferred to be held by the official trustee in trust for the purpose mentioned in the document. The purpose of the trust was to ensure payment of regular alimony to Khorshed and for providing for the ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Iltush Ahmed and anr..
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court : This Court ( The Honble Justice Patherya ) passed an order dated September 9, 2008 appointing a Receiver to make an inventory of the assets in possession of the alleged contemnors. The order was communicated to the alleged contemnors on September 23, 2008. It appears that the learned Receiver was not allowed to make an inventory in terms of the order dated September 9, 2008 of Her Ladyship. On September 23, 2008 this Bench directed the learned Receiver to take actual physical possession of the assets in question, if necessary with police help. The learned Receiver submitted a report wherefrom it appears that the alleged contemnors obstructed implementation of the order dated September 23, 2008 of this Court. On December 3, 2008, this Court confirmed the earlier interim order and directed the respondents to make over possession of the assets in question to the learned Receiver at a time and place to be notified by the learned Receiver. The learned Receiver directed the alleg...
Kesar Kanwar Bengani Vs. Itc Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
The Court :- The plaintiff claims to have lost the certificates relating to the shares held by the plaintiff in the defendant company. Following the plaintiffs complaint, the defendant wrote back on June 1, 2010 saying that since a large number of shares was involved, it was the defendants policy to advise any shareholder complaining of loss of share certificates to obtain an order from Court for issuance of duplicate certificates. It is not necessary to go in to the propriety of such a requirement by a listed company of the defendants magnitude. The present application is for judgment on admission. The underlying principle of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code may not allow any order to be made on the present application. There are several reasons. The company cannot be interested in its own shares and the company is not the owner of the shares. However, it does not appear from the letter issued on June 1, 2010 by the defendant to the plaintiff that there are any other claimants for the sam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »