Kolkata Court April 2010 Judgments

Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India and ors. Vs. Devi Ispat Ltd. and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010(5)LW151

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a Respondent in a writ- application and is directed against an order dated August 24, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ- application by directing the appellant before us to forthwith return the title-deeds deposited before it by the writ-petitioner as condition of obtaining the loan- facility.2. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, the Central Bank of India, has come up with this appeal.3. In the writ-application, the writ-petitioners prayed for the following relief:a) A writ of and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondent-bank and each one of their men, agents and/or subordinates to forthwith take steps to release the security documents and issue No Objection Certificate and No Due Certificate pertaining to the petitioner-company's account with the Burrabazar Branch of the respondent-bank to the petitioner-company which they have not ...

Rafique Shake Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J1. Chalehar Bibi, widow of late Sahajahan Sekh of Mathantala Ghoshpara, Police Station Haroa, in the District of 24-Parganas (North) made a written complaint on June 26, 2001 to the extent that her husband was killed by her brother in-law Rafique Sheikh. As per the complaint, Sahajahan was a habitual drunkard and he used to torture Chalehar as well as her children under the influence of liquor. On the night of June 25, 2001 at about 10:00 p.m. Sahajahan came back home, heavily drunk and abused Chalehar and her children in obscene language. He also made obscene remarks hinting illicit relationship between Chalehar and Rafique. Being annoyed, Rafique gave a blow with the help of 'Daa' upon Sahajahan and in consequence thereof Sahajahan fell down on the ground. The neighbours took him to Basirhat Hospital. However, on the way he succumbed to the injury. After consulting with the neighbours, Chalehar lodged a written complaint. Rafique was arrested and chargesheeted ...

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Vs. P. Sethian

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. To begin with, some hard facts relating to the proceedings need to be recorded without any comment for the moment. The disputes between the parties relate to the construction of certain buildings in Libya and the first letter of intent was issued sometime in March - April, 1980. By April, 1984 the construction was completed and the site handed over by the contractor. The final bill was raised on April 22, 1984. In or about June, 1986 the petitioner herein instituted a suit before this Court claiming a decree for Rs. 1.76 crore on account of interest bearing loans that the petitioner, as employer, had provided to the contractor.2. The contractor applied for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and succeeded. The order, thus, implied that the claim of the petitioner herein in the suit was covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties. A reference commenced before a departmental arbitrator and thereafter before another. By an orde...

Xenitis Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Sathi Dealers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2010]155CompCas330(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The substance of the claim in both petitions is the same, only the petitioners and the details are different. The parties have submitted that a judgment on the one will cover the other matter. The claim in either case is on account of alleged inter-corporate deposits made by the petitioner with the common company and the alleged failure of the company to repay the same. The details in this judgment are those covered by CP No. 316 of 2008.2. In addition to the affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed in either case, the petitioner obtained leave to use a supplementary affidavit. The company was permitted to use a rejoinder, but the rejoinder was to be limited to the statements contained in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The order dated February 1, 2010 did not permit the company to include any material beyond dealing with the supplementary affidavit and enclosing copies of documents referred to in the opposition.3. The petitioner i...