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.
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sai Krishna Impex and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court :-Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application. It is founded on a hire purchase agreement dated 22nd June, 2007 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, whose value is Rs.83,10,900/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 26th October, 2009. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on 7th October, 2009 is Rs.70,50,966/- Arbitrator has been appointed. Affidavit of service has been filed in Court. It is submitted that the respondents have been served, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. I appoint Mr. Srijan Nayak, Bar Association Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file the report by the r...
Balamram Singh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court : This writ petition is directed against a memo No.278(3)/GL/(CF) dated July 23, 2010 issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Nadia, enclosing an order dated June 22, 2010 to July 12, 2010 of the Additional District Magistrate(Dev.), Nadia, rejecting the application of the petitioners for approval of the reconstitution of the partnership firm M/s. Mrityunjoy Singha & Sons, the holder of a dealership licence under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 by induction of the wife of the deceased partner in his place. The petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 carried on business of dealership in Super Kerosene Oil as partners of M/s. Mrityunjoy Singha & Sons, along with their brother Rabindra Nath Singha, who died on 12th December, 2008. On 15th December, 2008, the petitioners intimated the Sub Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies) of the death of Rabindra Nath Singha. The partnership firm was reconstituted by induction of the petitioner No.3, widow of late Rabindra Nath Sing...
Abl International Ltd and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court :- Grievance of the petitioners in this art.226 petition dated July 20, 2010 is that the Controller has neither sent them intimation under s.21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 nor paid them the deposited amounts for the months and periods mentioned in the document at p. 121. Their case is this. Their tenant deposited rent payable for the months with the Controller, though in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 it could not deposit rent with the Controller. By an order dated 8th March 2004 (at p. 39) they were permitted to withdraw the amounts. They applied to the Controller producing the available challans-originals and copies. Copies were produced for the deposits for which the Controller did not send them any intimation. For undisclosed reasons the Controller has not made any payment. On instructions, Mr. Ganguly, Additional Advocate-on- Record for the State of West Bengal, submits that af...
Kripa Shankar Upadayay Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
The Court :-This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the application for recalling of the order dated September 26, 2006 passed earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in G.A.No.468 of 2005 whereby and where under the said Division Bench dismissed the stay application being G.A.No.468 of 2005 filed in connection with the appeal on the ground of default. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that sufficient reasons have been furnished for condoning the delay in filing the application for recalling of the order dated September 26, 2006 passed earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in G.A.No.468 of 2005. Therefore, the delay in filing the application for restoration is condoned. This application thus stands allowed. There will, however, no order as to costs. Ref.: G.A.No.2210 of 2010. This application has been filed for recalling of the order dated September ...
M/S. Rajat Fuel Product Corporation and ors Vs. Coal India Ltd. and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
The Court : In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged notice No.CCL/HQ/C-4/Sectt/10/5227-41 dated July 13, 2010 issued by Central Coalfields Limited to the petitioners. The notice has been addressed to the petitioners at Hazaribagh outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned notice relates to the fuel supply agreement dated April 30, 2008 entered into between Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner No.1 for supply of coal. Mr. Mukherjee takes a preliminary objection to the writ petition pointing out that there is a forum selection clause in the said fuel supply agreement viz. clause 18.4 which is set out herein below for convenience: 18.4 Governing Law: This Agreement, and the rights and obligations hereunder shall be interpreted construed and governed by the laws of India. The Court of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters under this Agreement. The notice having been issued from Ranchi and addressed to and received b...
independent Journalist Society and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
THE COURT : Let the affidavit-in-opposition to both the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit of the writ petitioners, filed by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of Union of India in Court today be taken on record. Mr. Jaydip Kar, learned Advocate appearing for Ambootia Tea Group Exports Pvt.Ltd., Samsing Organic Tea Pvt.Ltd. and Yong Tong Organic Tea Pvt.Ltd. opposes the application for addition of party being G.A. 2543 of 2010, which is not appearing in the list today. He, however, submits that in the event the Court is inclined to add his clients as parties, the writ petitioners be directed to furnish his clients with copies of the writ petition, supplementary affidavit along with copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner No.1 so that he can meet the allegations made against his clients and assist the Court in the matter. He also prays for a direction upon the other respondents to furnish his clients with copies of their respecti...
R.P.infosystems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
The Court : The petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent no. 6 had been selected by the official respondents for supply of desktop computers in violation of Government orders. It has not been disputed before this Court that the contract has been performed by the respondent no. 6 in full. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to decide the grievance raised by the petitioner for that would really be academic. Be it recorded that that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims. If at all the petitioner has suffered prejudice due to any action of the official respondents which it considers to be unlawful, the petitioner shall be at liberty to sue the official respondents for damages before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondents shall be retained with the record. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be s...
Sandip Ghosal Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
In this writ application, the petitioner has sought orders on the respondent Regional Transport Authority to issue a Stage Carriage Permit to the petitioner to operate a vehicle on Route No.79B from Barasat to Bagbazar. Section 80(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide as follows : 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits (1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. (2) A Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed specified in a ...
Pankaj Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) W. B. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
The respondents published an auction notice for disposal of, inter alia, 42.036 kg. (approximately) of metal scraps. The relevant terms and conditions of the auction notice reads thus. 5. Successful tenderers will be required to deposit the balance amount plus other government due, if any, within a period of 10 days from the date of finalization of the tender, failing which the `Earnest Money Deposit automatically will stands forfeited, without any further reference to the tenderers. 7. Sealed tenders shall be opened by the members of Joint Pricing Committee and in presence of the tenderers at 4 P.M. on 14.03.2008 in the chamber of Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), CC (P), WB, Kolkata. 8. The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reasons whatsoever. On 14th March, 2008 itself the petitioner had offered to purchase the total quantity of metal scraps put up on auction @ 2.27 per kg.. He had enclosed therewith two pay orders, one for ...
M/S. Continental Commercial Co. (In Liquidation). Vs. the Official Liq ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
The Court: The report of the auditor in furtherance to my order dated 16th July, 2010 is taken on record. The learned Counsel for the parties perused this report in Court. I have gone through the report of the Official Liquidator dated 5th August, 2010. It is as hopeless as the earlier one. There is no contradiction of the fact that the directors had resigned long before the date of liquidation. The respondent no.1 had ceased to be director as submitted from March 2001 and respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 had resigned from 3rd April, 2001. I do not appreciate the remark. It is presumed that the aforesaid Ex-Directors would have continued to be Directors upto the date of liquidation and at the same time had defaulted in filing subsequent Annual Returns and Balance Sheet. There is no such presumption, in the facts of this case. If misfeasance proceedings are to be continued one has to come up with a specific case against a specific person. Pendency of misfeasance proceedings causes considerab...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »