Kolkata Court August 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.
Sanatanu Kumar Dey Vs. Sanat Kumar Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
The Court : This is a Section 9 application. It was moved on 6th July, 2009 when direction for filing affidavits was made by this Court. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. None appears for the respondents even at the second call. I am referred to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed dated 1st July, 1990 which is the arbitration clause. In terms of this arbitration clause, the petitioner caused a letter dated 2.3.2009 written to the respondent no.1 asking him to concur in the appointment of an Arbitrator made by him. There is no reply to such letter. In the circumstances, let this application be placed before the Honble Delegate of the Honble the Chief Justice for appointment of an Arbitrator. Let the Registrar, Original Side, take necessary steps in the matter. Registrar, O.S., and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Rajashahi Transport and Trading (P) Ltd. Vs. Shimenshu Vyaparik Kendra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
The Court : The order dated 23rd April, 2007 admitting the winding up application was stayed by an order dated 1st August, 2007 according to a Terms of Settlement filed in Court. Only three instalments were paid, the last one not later than 2007. The learned Advocate appearing for the company has got nothing to show that such Terms of Settlement were complied with. Therefore, there is no point in giving any direction for filing affidavits by them as that would only delay disposal of this application. Facts are more or less admitted. However, the petitioning creditor is a lot to blame for sitting tight over the matter for three years after default. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this application by passing order in terms of prayer (a). The petitioning creditor is to forthwith publish the advertisement. However, since there is a delay of three years in filing this application, there would be stay of operation of this order for two weeks from date to enable the compan...
Bharat Singh Arjun Singh Tanwar Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
The Court: This is an application under Section 34. It is at the stage of admission. It challenges an award dated 4th May, 2008. Execution proceedings have long begun from or about May 2009. I did not admit this application but instead asked the parties to file affidavits to show how the award was served upon the petitioner. This setting aside application is founded on the premise that the award was received by the petitioner on 20th April, 2010. The records show otherwise. By his letter dated 4th May, 2008 the arbitrator declared that he had made and published the award and enclosed a copy with it. That letter was addressed to the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the Arbitration. This letter is at page 9 of the affidavit in opposition. Copies of postal records at pages 15 and 16 of the said affidavit being the signed acknowledgement card by the addressee and the letter of the postal department dated 10th July, 2010 show beyond any doubt that the award was received by the respondent no.1, who...
Besco Ltd. Vs. P.K.Bagla and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
The Court : This is an application to stay my order dated 21st June, 2010 admitting a winding up application. The company has brought a bank draft for Rs.5 lakh issued by Allahabad Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, Kolkata. Stay of advertisement was granted in the said order for six weeks. Thereafter upon this application being moved, on 2nd August, 2010 this stay was extended till today. The question is whether the stay is to be further extended. Provided this particular debt as adjudged in the order dated 21st June, 2010 together with interest calculated from now on reducing balance principles is liquidated by payment of a sum of Rs.5 lakh every two months till such sum together with interest is paid off the winding up order will remain stayed. If after payment of any installment, a fraction of Rs.5 lakh is due that would be the last installment. In default of any one installment, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for advertisement in terms of the original order. This payment...
Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Singhal Enterprises (Jharsuguda) Pvt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court: This is an application by Mr. Mookerjees client for sanction of a scheme of de-merger. It is opposed by the clients of Mr. Basak. From what has been submitted before me, it appears that there is a substantive suit pending between the parties. Interlocutory applications have been made in aid of that suit. The subject matter of challenge appears to me to be a family settlement on which basis the scheme was formulated. A judgement and order dated 3rd August, 2010 has been passed by Brother Sanjib Banerjee, J. in GA No.1009 of 2008, GA No.2423 of 2009, and GA No.407 of 2010 connected with the said suit being CS No.47 of 2008. By that order the said family settlement has not been disturbed. However, it is submitted that expeditious steps are being taken to prefer an appeal from that order. Although adjournment of three weeks is sought for, I am not prepared to grant such adjournment because Mr. Mookerjee expresses urgency in getting orders in the application. However, in order to...
Thakurani Sree Sree Durgamata Jue Estste Vs. Geeta Ganesh Promoters
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court : This is an application by the purchaser under the order dated 29th October, 2009 in ATA No.5 of 2009. In this application, the purchaser is supported by all the shebaits except the shebait represented by Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, learned counsel. The other shebaits are represented by Mr. H.K.Mitra, learned senior counsel. It is submitted by the purchaser that Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. was a lessee of a small portion of the property in question. The affairs are before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Since the lease has expired, necessary orders have to be sought from the said Board regarding the property. Mr. Bachawat submits that he has already filed an application, which is not before me, alleging default in making payment of the sale price by the petitioner and for necessary orders. Today, I am not going into the question of alleged default, as it has to be gone into upon affidavits. As long as the order dated 29th October, 2009 is in operatio...
Sambhu Nath Saha and ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court :- This is an application for restoration of the art. 226 petition that was dismissed by an order dated July 27, 2010 for non-appearance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that for reasons beyond control advocate could not appear when the matter was called on for hearing. Counsel for the Oil Marketing Company submits that he has no objection to an order restoring the petition. Counsel for the petitioner prays for restoration of the interim order as well. Counsel for the company submits that it is doubtful whether the interim order initially made was existing at the date the petition was dismissed. In view of the above-noted situation, I allow this application for restoration. The order dated July 27, 2010 dismissing the petition is recalled. The petition is restored to file. If there was any interim order at the date the petition was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner, then such interim order shall be deemed to be restored. If in terms of this order any interim or...
Re: M/S. Recon Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Beriwala @ Rajendra Kumar B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court: This winding up application is coming up for final orders after advertisement. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the company prays for the discretionary order of permanent stay or dismissal of the winding up application on the condition that the company would pay off the sum adjudged in the order admitting the winding up application, dated 8th March, 2010, by five equal monthly installments. Such proposal is reasonable. Provided the company pays up the sum of Rs.1,54,982/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from 1st September, 2008 accrued till date in five equal monthly installments beginning from September 2010, the winding up application will stand permanently stayed and/or dismissed. Such installment has to be paid by the 7th of each month. In default of any one installment the winding up application will automatically revive and the petitioner will be at liberty to pray for further orders. The petitioning creditor will be entitled to ...
Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Continental Steel Store and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court : This application was mentioned on 22nd July, 2010, when considering the situation, necessary orders were passed for possession of the vehicle by a Receiver. The Receiver has filed a report, which is taken on record. It appears from the report that the copy of the order was served on the Receiver on 26th July, 2010. The Receiver can only take steps upon being properly assisted by the parties. It appears that the Receiver was asked to visit the respondents address on 6th August, 2010. I am afraid that no urgency at all has been shown after obtaining the order dated 22nd July, 2010. Therefore, since possession of the vehicle has not been taken further to the order dated 22nd July, 2010, let status quo regarding the vehicle be maintained till disposal of this application. Affidavit in opposition is to be filed by 23rd August, 2010. List this application in the monthly list of September, 2010. Affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime. No remuneration of the Receiver was p...
M/S. I.K. Merchants Ltd. Vs. Orient Paper and Industries
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court :- Although after the institution of the suit, the writ of summons was duly served, the defendant did not file its written statement to contest the suit though the defendant had entered appearance through its advocate on 11 March 1993. The certificates of the department concerned regarding the above facts are kept on record. Since the defendant has chosen not to contest the suit as it, till date, has not filed its written statement and none appeared on behalf of the defendant at the time when the suit was heard, under the provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, in my opinion, is entitled to obtain relief as sought for by the plaintiff in this suit. However, the plaintiffs witness, namely one of the directors of the plaintiff had given evidence in Court on two occasions, namely on 7 March 2010 and 5 April 2010 when he proved all the documents on which the cause of action of the plaintiff is based. In addition to that, as directed by this Court, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »