Kolkata Court November 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.
Apollo Zipper India Ltd. and anr. Vs. W. Newman and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
The Court : The claim in the suit is not for eviction but for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to make any addition or alteration to the tenanted premises as described in Annexure B to the plaint with an additional relief for an injunction on the defendant from changing the nature and character of the suit premises or creating third party rights in respect thereof. On the plaintiffs interlocutory application, GA No. 1267 of 2007, no ad interim order was passed since it was recorded in an order dated March 26, 2007 that the defendant was only carrying out normal renovation and repair work at the shop room. The defendant filed a subsequent application, GA No. 3855 of 2007, on which an order in terms of prayer (f) of that petition was passed restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the defendants use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises. The last substantive order passed in this suit was on January 16, 2008 when a Special Officer was appointed for the purpose of ...
Ram Gopal Agarwala Vs. Dharam Chand Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-2010
The Court : The application is by the third and fourth defendants in a partition suit. The applying defendants claim that in addition to the joint properties that have been referred to by the plaintiff, there are two further properties at 20/210, Dwarkadhish Road, Kanpur and 25, Baranasi Ghosh Street, Calcutta which also belong to the family. The applying defendants aver at paragraph 12 of the petition that the said two properties were acquired out of the funds of the HUF. On the plaintiffs earlier interlocutory application an order of injunction was made in respect of the immovable properties. At the behest of the defendant nos.3 and 4 the two properties referred to above were also included as part of the joint family properties and a similar order of injunction was passed in respect thereof on concession made on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently applied for the injunction in respect of the aforesaid two properties to be vacated on the ground that the concession had ...
Kamala Devi Nemani Vs. Deepak Choudhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : The original plaintiff had claimed that she had lent and advanced a certain sum of money to the first defendant. Upon the original plaintiff demanding repayment, the defendants asserted that the money was being held in trust for the benefit of the two sons of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff claimed that there was no deed of trust executed and since the amount was admitted, the first defendant was obliged to return the same together with interest. The original plaintiff has died and is survived by her two sons Dilip Kumar Nemani and Anup Kumar Nemani both of Anandkanan Building, 10A, Alipore Park Place, Kolkata-700 027. The younger son, Dilip, claims that the original plaintiff executed a Will under which Dilip is the executor and the beneficiary. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the Will may not be genuine and Anup may have an equal share in the payment due from the first defendant to the original plaintiff. The stand taken by the defendants i...
Poddar Heri Invstments Ltd Vs. Chopra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The defendants suggest that the claim cannot be proceeded with in any Civil Court in view of the specific arbitration agreement between the parties. The principal part of the arbitration agreement, which runs into several sub-paragraphs dealing with the procedure, provides as follows: 12.1 All disputes and differences between the parties hereto regarding the construction or interpretation of any of the terms herein shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Sri R. L. Gaggar, Solicitor and Advocate.or any person nominated by him It is the plaintiffs case that the second defendant approached the plaintiff for an inter-corporate deposit of Rs.2 crore to finance the purchase of an immovable property in Delhi. The plaint narrates the circumstances in which the plaintiff made over the sum of Rs.2 crore and the execution of an agreement of December 17, 2009 between the parties hereto. The cause...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : The decree-holder says that the person who made the highest offer earlier has backed out though the earnest deposit of Rs.10,000/- still remains with the Receiver. The second-highest bid for the sale of the excavator of 2007-make is of Rs.12.5 lakh by Sheesh Ram of Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan. Accordingly, the order dated August 26, 2010 confirming the sale of the excavator in favour of Ankit Goel is recalled and the sale of the excavator is now confirmed in favour of Sheesh Ram at Rs.12.5 lakh. The earnest deposit of Rs.10,000/- furnished by Ankit Goel will be forfeited. The Receiver will make over the asset to the purchaser only upon receiving the full consideration therefore and the consideration may be received directly in the name of the decree-holder. The Receiver may hand over possession of the excavator by way of a letter of possession being issued or by engaging an agent for the purpose of making over physical possession. The Receiver will be paid a further remunera...
infar ( India) Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : This is an application for amendment of the plaint consequent upon the change of name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is now known as Organon (India) Limited. A copy of the fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name evidencing the new name has been appended in the petition. There will be an order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the Masters Summons. The amendment will be carried out within four weeks from date. Since the amendment is formal in nature, the defendants will not be entitled to use any additional written statement and the reference to the plaintiff in the written statement will be treated as the reference to the plaintiff in its changed name. GA No. 3090 of 2010 is allowed as above without any order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been used by the defendants, the allegations in the application should not be deemed to have been admitted. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subjec...
Ajay Kumar De and ors. Vs. the Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : By this application the petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to conduct audit and an independent enquiry into the affairs of the respondent no.6. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent no.6 has been functioning by its directors to their benefit and to the detriment of the investors. The petitioners are small time investors in the respondent no.6 and the acts of the directors of the respondent no.6 has resulted in dissipation of the assets of the respondent no.6. Therefore, the affairs of the respondent no.6 ought to be reorganized so that its banking operations are continued in a fair and proper manner and for such purposes an investigation be made. On rejection of the application for grant of license a writ petition has been filed and the same is pending adjudication. The respondent no.6 is defunct although the State intends to revive the same for which purposes huge sums are to be invested. Without an investigation into the affairs of t...
Santosh Kumar Mallick Vs. Bhagabta Kumar Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : The appearing parties are agreed that the property of the debater estate at 69, Narkeldanga Main Road has been encroached upon and is required to be sold since it does not fetch any income. However, before the question as to whether there is any legal necessity to permit the sale of the Narkeldanga Property is taken up, a proper offer for the property is to be received. The land available in Narkeldanga measures more than 9 cottah. There is an offer of Rs. 8 lakh, another of Rs. 4 lakh and third of Rs. 2 lakh. It appears that the offers may have been made by the same person or the same group of persons. It would be unconscionable to sell the debutter property measuring over 9 cottah at a paltry sum of Rs. 8 lakh even though a substantial portion of it may be encroached upon. The appearing parties say that a fresh advertisement should be issued and the she baits should be given liberty to bring private offers. The joint Managing Trustees will cause advertisements to be publi...
Vinod Kumar Mimani and ors. Vs. Brij Ratan Mimni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : All the parties are represented. The original plaint has been produced from which it appears that the name of the original seventh plaintiff has been struck off and the original fifth plaintiff has been transposed as the defendant no. 19. The wife of the transposed defendant has been added as the defendant no. 20. Several of the original defendants have died and their heirs have been brought on record. There was an amendment carried out in June, 2006 and a subsequent amendment carried out in June, 2010 in the plaint relating to this partition suit. There appears to be three groups with the plaintiffs having a common representation, the defendant nos. 1(a) to 18 having a common representation and the defendant nos. 19 and 20 being jointly represented. There are three party-receivers in place and accounts had been filed by the original joint receivers and handed over to the party-receivers. The parties have agreed to their respective shares and four sheets have been signed by...
Shrachi Securities Ltd. Vs. Razia Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : This is an application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating some additional parties. The case in the plaint is that the plaintiff had obtained an award in an arbitral reference against a company and the second defendant herein. The second defendant was the guarantor in the agreement in which the company was the principal debtor. The plaintiff apparently put the award into execution and obtained some money from the sale of a Hazratgunj, Lucknow property of the second defendant. The plaintiff thereafter chased a Camac Street property of the second defendant. The third defendant herein, a company which includes the second defendant as a shareholder to the extent of 15.61% therein and other associates of the second defendant, resisted the plaintiffs attempt in executing the award against the flat at premises no.26, Camac Street. An initial order was passed in the execution proceedings permitting the conveyance to be executed in favour of the third defendant by the build...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »