Kolkata Court July 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.
Durga Rani Dutta Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
The respondent-bank had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as the 1993 Act) for realizing its dues, inter alia, against the petitioner. The proceedings were registered as OA/30 of 2004 wherein the petitioner was imp leaded as defendant no.4. After approaching the Tribunal, the bank issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as the 2002 Act) dated 31st August, 2007 calling upon her to clear the dues of the bank to the tune of Rs.20,66,749/-. By her representation dated 3rd November, 2007, the petitioner raised an objection to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act. It was her specific contention that she had never obtained any loan from the bank upon mortgaging her property and that the deed which the bank was r...
The Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Osm Arena Vs. Shi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
The Court : By the administrative order of the Honble Chief Justice dated 11th May, 2010, G.A. No.1607 of 2010 A.S. No.3 of 2010 was assigned to me. I entertained GA No.1607 of 2010 and passed an order for appraisement of the concerned vessel. Such application is pending. It may be mentioned that such application was taken out by the plaintiff/petitioner. Learned Counsel for the owner of the vessel obtained leave to move an urgent application concerning the vessel today, after submitting that the entire proceedings connected with AS No.3 of 2010 were assigned to me. Accordingly, such leave was granted. I directed the urgent application, which was subsequent to the leave numbered as TA/67/10, to appear in my list today as New Motion. It has so appeared. At the time of moving of this application by the defendant owner, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submitted that only GA No.1607 of 2010 had been assigned to me and not the entire proceedings. Therefore, I had no determinati...
Achyutananda Chowdhury Vs. Salil Kumar Saha Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
The Court :- It appears that this application has been filed for recalling of an order dated 21st January, 2000. It appears from the facts that the petitioner applied for revocation of probate which was granted by the Court under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. On 6th November, 1997 the said matter was heard out by His Lordship Ajoy Nath Ray (As His Lordship then was) and was dismissed on the ground that the application for revocation of probate is made by a rank outsider. Being aggrieved an appeal was filed before the Appeal Court. On 29th November, 1999 the appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed an application for recalling of the said order dated 29th November, 1999 and by an order dated 21st January, 2000 the Division Bench was pleased to recall the order dated 29th November, 1999 with a condition that subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the respondent within 2 weeks from the date of the order and if such cost is not paid the order sh...
Trex Veneers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Aradhana Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
The Court: It appears from the records that for alleged default of the petitioner in filing their statement of claim, the arbitral tribunal terminated the arbitration under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996. Reference may be made to the letter dated 30th September, 2008 of one of the arbitrators, (now deceased) to the petitioner. This application asked the Court to appoint an arbitrator in place and in stead of the deceased arbitrator Shyamanand Jalan. When there is no revival of the arbitral proceedings or grounds made out to reverse such termination in this application, there is no scope for appointment of any arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings stand terminated. However, while dismissing this application I reserve liberty to the petitioner to take out a fresh application on the self-same cause of action and for reviving the mandate of the arbitrators, if so advised and if so available in law. This application is accordingly dismissed.All parties concerned are...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi Earthmovers and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
The Court :- There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The petitioner filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Trial Court and prayed for the following orders:-(a) Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be granted; (b) A fit and proper person be appointed Receiver over and in respect of the said asset being one No. VOLVO. EC 290 Excavator, MSL No. 10467058 Chassis No. 15531 with the direction to take possesion thereof personally and/or through his authorized agents and the said Receiver and/or his agent be empowered to take police help, from the local police authorities within whose jurisdiction the said assets may be found lying for taking possession and bringing the same to Kolkata Injunction restraining the respondents, their servants and/or agents for representatives and/or assigns from disposing of and/or transferring and/or in any way dealing with or changing the identity of assets being one no. VOLVO EC...
Sri Milan Kanti Mondal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
The application filed under section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act (hereinafter called the Act) praying for condonation of delay, as well as the objection filed against it are taken up today for passing order . In the application under section 22 of the Act the applicant has stated that consequent to a Court Martial Proceeding, that was initiated against him, he was found guilty and the sentence of reduction in rank as well as dismissal from service was passed on 8.8.2001. The mercy petition, as was filed by the applicant, was also rejected. Thereafter the applicant filed a writ petition in the year 2002 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad. However, since that court had no jurisdiction, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition. This order was passed on 25th August 2003 and it was communicated to the petitioner through his Advocate at Hyderabad. The applicant filed an application praying for clarification of the said order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court who...
Madanlal Periwal and ors. Vs. Basudeo Khaithan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The Court : The petitioner No.1 died on December 28, 2009. Let his death be recorded. His heir is substituted by the following: Mr. Piyush Periwal (son) The present dispute pertains to clearing of the outstanding dues on account of the decretal outstanding payable by the petitioners to the respondents in terms of the judgement and decree dated September 23, 2008 passed by the Division Bench presided over by one of us (Banerjee, J) sitting with the Honble Justice Tapash Kumar Giri (since retired). The petitioners applied for modification of the judgement and order dated September 23, 2008, inter alia, praying for relaxation of payment of interest. We heard the matter on the last occasion when we found that the principal amount had already been paid. The dispute now pertains to payment of interest due to delayed payment of the decretal sum. According to the calculation made as per the judgement and decree dated September 23, 2008 the respondents claimed a sum of Rs.15,77,997.35. The peti...
M/S. Sheo Charan Lal Lilha and anr. Vs. Hindustan Pertroleum Crporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The Court:-Both these writ petitions are being taken up together for hearing as similar factual issues and legal questions are involved. The writ petitioners are transporters of the petroleum products and they responded to a bidding process called by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for transporting their products in tankers. It appears that both the petitioners had succeeded in their technical evaluation and it was at the stage of consideration of price bid, their respective bids were rejected. The bidding is done upon inviting various transporters and it is the admitted position that there is no capping or limit on the number of transporters who may be successful in this process. In W.P.No.1276 of 2009, the petitioner no.2 was present when the bid took place. In the second writ petition being W.P.No.1278 of 2009, a claim has been made that representatives of the petitioners were also present. In both the cases, petitioners claim is that they had agreed to revise their b...
M/S. Agarwalla Auto Service and anr. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The Court:-Both these writ petitions are being taken up together for hearing as similar factual issues and legal questions are involved. The writ petitioners are transporters of the petroleum products and they responded to a bidding process called by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) for transporting their products in tankers. It appears that both the petitioners had succeeded in their technical evaluation and it was at the stage of consideration of price bid, their respective bids were rejected. The bidding is done upon inviting various transporters and it is the admitted position that there is no capping or limit on the number of transporters who may be successful in this process. In W.P.No.1276 of 2009, the petitioner no.2 was present when the bid took place. In the second writ petition being W.P.No.1278 of 2009, a claim has been made that representatives of the petitioners were also present. In both the cases, petitioners claim is that they had agreed to revise their b...
Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. Vs. Indo Wagon Engineering Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
The Court : The matter is mentioned for modification of the order dated 6th May, 2010. It is very fair on the part of the parties to jointly submit before me that the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator be increased, time to file the Award be extended by one year from date and the Arbitrator be at liberty to appoint his secretarial staff. Considering the stature of the learned Arbitrator, I may only observe that the learned Arbitrator will be free to fix his own remuneration and appoint secretarial staff in whatever manner he pleases. Further, administrative expenses incurred by the Arbitrator are to be borne by the parties. There is no time limit under the new Act to make and publish the Award. However, I do only record the agreement of the parties as follows:- The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator is Rs.10,000/- per sitting to be shared equally by the parties. The Arbitrator can appoint a Clerk and Stenographer at a remuneration to be fixed by him. The parties will share the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »