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.
Borjeswar Sirka and anr. Vs. Moni Bhusan Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
The Court : The applicants are not parties to this partition suit. The applicants claim to be owners of premises no.44, Mott Lane and 33, Dharmatalla Street. The applicants had applied earlier in or about the year 1994 and at their instance an order was passed on March 30, 1994. It is necessary to notice two of the paragraphs of the order dated March 30,1994: The suit was filed in 1955 for partition by metes and bounds of various properties claimed to be the joint family properties. Amongst the properties which were so claimed were the leasehold properties at 44, Motts Lane, Calcutta and at 33, Dharamatalla Street, Calcutta. The preliminary decree was passed in the matter on 19th Sept., 1960. The preliminary decree specifically provides that the properties mentioned in schedule A to the decree were the joint family properties and the properties mentioned in Schedule B were not liable to be partitioned as they had not been proved to belong to the joint family. The leasehold properties a...
D. Wren Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Rahul Commerce (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : This is a winding up application coming up for admission. It is a very old case of 2001. None appears for the company even at the second call. The records say that by His Lordships order dated 11th May, 2010 Sanjib Banerjee, J. had directed the petitioner to serve another notice on the company. An affidavit of service affirmed on 18th June, 2010 has been filed showing such compliance. It appears that this winding up application was admitted on 25th July, 2002. The sum adjudged prima facie payable was Rs.1,95,090/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the cheque. An appeal being ACO No.3 of 2004, APO No.236 of 2004 was preferred from such order. That appeal was disposed of on 6th September, 2006 directing payment of the adjudged sum in that appeal by instalments. It is submitted that no such sum has been paid. The Appeal Court in the said order specifically said that if there was failure to pay the adjudged sum, the Trial Court could proceed w...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr. B.G. Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : Affidavit of service has been filed in Court. It is submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have refused service. Service was also directed to be effected on the Naval Authorities in Vishakhapatnam. Such service was made by registered post but acknowledgement due card is awaited. None appears for the respondents. Considering the admission contained in the letter dated 24.9.2010 I pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent nos.1 and 2 from transferring or otherwise parting with possession or dealing with the equipments mentioned at page 44 of the petition till disposal of this application. I make this application returnable once again on 18th November, 2010. The petitioners Advocate-on-Record is directed to serve another notice on all the respondents and the Naval Authorities, Vishakhapatnam as a last chance for them to appear. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings....
Silicon Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sikria Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : This is a third Section 9 application, moved ex parte. It is so moved on the apprehension that if notice of this application was given to the respondent, they would quickly realise the sum payable to them by Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and misappropriate it. The prima facie case of the petitioner is like this. The respondent obtained a contract from a Government company, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., to construct a jail in Tripura. The petitioner became its business partner to execute such project. Such project became a joint venture between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner provided the respondent with substantial capital. The respondent has committed breach of the joint venture agreement and is, inter alia, utilising the funds received from Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., keeping the petitioner in the dark and without sharing the profits with the petitioner in terms of the agreement. Protective orders were passed by Indira Banerjee, J., in an...
Shamima Absar Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court :-The petitioner in this art.226 petition is seeking a mandamus commanding the police to give her protection so that she may use the brickfield in terms of the order dated July 15, 2010 (at p.26) made in her application under s.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order dated July 15, 2010 was to remain in force till August 16, 2010. In the petitioners appeal from the order the Division Bench made an order dated August 23, 2010 (at p.30) , and the Division Bench did not say anything about the order dated July 15, 2010. Counsel has submitted that the order is still in force. It is not disputed that the s.9 application itself has been posted for hearing tomorrow. On these facts, I am of the view that it will be appropriate for the petitioner to seek appropriate order from the Court before which the s.9 application is pending. Needless to say that the Court will be free to examine all facts and make appropriate order. It is made clear that if the private responde...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjev Kr.Dwivedi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : The decree-holder says copies of a supplementary affidavit indicating the balance decretal debt have been forwarded to the judgment-debtors but the envelopes have returned unnerved notwithstanding the addresses being as indicated in the agreement. A sum in excess of Rs.8 lakh is due. The asset which was the subject matter of the agreement has been sold and the sale proceeds appropriated by the decree-holder in potato satisfaction of the decretal debt. The judgment-debtors should file their affidavits of assets within a period of eight weeks from date. The decree-holder will inform the judgment-debtors accordingly. The matter will appear on the first available chamber day eight weeks hence for it to be ascertained if the judgment-debtors have been made aware of this direction and for a possible further direction on the judgment-debtors to be present to be examined as to how the decrial debt may be discharged. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be sup...
M/S. Budhiani Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : It is submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the entire amount covered by the decree has been deposited with the Registrar, Original Side pursuant to the liberty granted to such effect by the orders dated September 17, 2010 and October 1, 2010. In such view of the matter, the order of June 10, 2010 passed on GA No. 633 of 2005 is recalled and GA No. 633 of 2005 is restored to the file. The judgment made in terms of the award on June 10, 2010 is also recalled. AC No. 13 of 2004 and GA No. 633 of 2005 as they now stand revived shall have to be heard. It is clarified that though the order dated September 17, 2010 recorded that the application for setting aside the award would be taken up immediately upon the order dated June 10, 2010 being recalled, the setting aside application cannot be taken up by this Court for want of determination. GA No. 2556 of 2010 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supp...
N.D.Tubes Impex Pvt. Ltd.and ors. Vs. Model Manufacturing Co.Ltd.and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The Court : The Administrator appointed by Court over the building will file a Report dealing with the compliance with the conditions set by both the fire services authority and CESC Ltd. It appears that certain conditions had been set by the fire services authority in July 2009 but for one reason or the other all the conditions have not been complied with despite the suit having been instituted following a devastating fire at the building in question at 40, Strand Road, Calcutta. The Corporation is represented and it is submitted that the Corporation has required certain documents to be produced and some other conditions to be complied with for granting sanction in respect of the steel staircase proposed to be constructed at the rear of the building at the instance of the fire services authority. The conditions include the demand for a sanction fee which, according to the Corporation, has been sought according to the rules. Since it is evident that a temporary electricity connection a...
Nikhilesh Ganguli and ors. Vs. Gouri Shankar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2010
The suit is for eviction. On an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court an order was made on October 8, 2002 by which the Original defendant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- with Advocate representing the plaintiffs as a condition for obtaining leave to defend the suit. Such payment has been received and remains deposited in terms of the earlier order. The order dated October 8, 2002 required monthly occupation charges of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the 15th of every month in respect of the period after the date of the order. Advocate representing the plaintiffs, who is the Receiver in terms of the order, submits that a sum of Rs.2,86,505/- now remains (inclusive of interest) on account of the monthly deposit made by the original defendant up to the time of his death. The payments were made till the month of June, 2006 and the original defendant died on July 3, 2006. After the death of the original defendant no payment on account of o...
Happy Highrises Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-2010
No one has appeared to oppose the writ application in spite of notice. National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd., became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, hereinafter referred to as BIFR, under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as SICA. Pursuant to orders of BIFR, in pursuance of a rehabilitation scheme which contemplated one time settlement with secured creditors, the assets of M/s. Bangasree Cotton Mills, a unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd. were put up for sale by inviting tenders. Advertisements were issued. The petitioners obtained tender documents and submitted their bid along with others. The bid of the petitioners, being the highest, the land was sold to the petitioners. The tender documents contained the following statement : Permission from Govt. of West Bengal. The land intended for sale is free hold land. Govt. of West Beng...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »