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.
M/S. S.K. Construction and ors. Vs. Rupa Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
The Court: The parties do not want to go into a contested hearing of this application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 4th of March, 2010 in AP No.30 of 2008. They want substantive hearing of the Section 11 application, which is AP No.30 of 2008. This stand taken by the parties in Court today is very much appreciated because ultimately a matter is decided effectively only upon hearing contesting parties and not ex-parte. Therefore, without going into any other questions and without the petitioner in the Section 11 application admitting anyallegation of the respondent in GA No.1079 of 2010, the order dated 4th of March, 2010 is set aside and/or recalled. Let AP No.30 of 2008 be placed in the list on 10th of August, 2010 as an Adjourned Motion. The death of respondent no. 2 is recorded. By consent of the parties the name Sikta Prodhan is substituted in place and in stead of the respondent no.2 in AP No.30 of 2008. Let this amendment be carried out by the learned Advocate for the pet...
Bridge and Roof Company [India] Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
The Court : This application has to be adjourned for a period of four weeks. In that period or until further order, whichever is earlier, the status quo resulting from the existing orders regarding the subject bank guarantee has to be maintained. This order is occasioned because both the respondent and the petitioner are public sector undertakings. The petitioner is under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises whereas the respondent is under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Some correspondence has been disclosed by the petitioner and placed in detail by Mr.S.N. Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate, being letters dated 12th July, 2010 and 21st July, 2010 of the petitioner to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and the letter dated 3rd August, 2010 of the said Ministry of the petitioner to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The purpose of this correspondence, as it seems is to resolve the dispute betwe...
RabIn Charit Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
In this writ application, the petitioner has sought orders on the respondent Regional Transport Authority to issue permanent stage carriage permit to the petitioner to operate a vehicle on the route specified in his application. 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, State 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, State 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...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikram Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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 15th May, 2007 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is a truck, whose value is Rs.1,48,84,974/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 24th of June, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner are Rs.92,19,799/-. 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. Chanchal Basak, Bar Association Room No. 1, Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file the report by the returnable da...
Nischintapur Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Subrata Sen. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
The Court : The short question involved in this appeal is whether the court of appeal can interfere with the decision rendered by the Judge on recollection and/or assimilation of the happening of event transcribed in the order. The appeal is filed against an order rejecting an application for correction of an order dated April 12, 2007 dismissing a company application no. 302 of 2007 as not pressed in stead of dismissal of a company petition no. 252 of 1985. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants initiated a proceeding under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act being company petition no. 252 of 1985 seeking various reliefs as would appear there from. An interlocutory application was taken out in which the company court passed an order dated June 21, 1985 directing the maintenance of status quo in respect of the shares of the company being the subject matter of the dispute. During the pendency of the said company petition the original applicant, predecessor-in-interes...
Pankaj Poddar and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
In this writ application, the petitioner has sought orders on the respondent Regional Transport Authority to issue permanent stage carriage permit to the petitioner to operate a vehicle on the route specified in his application. 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, State 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, State 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...
Ajit Kumar Paul Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
In this writ application, the petitioner has sought orders on the respondent Regional Transport Authority to issue permanent stage carriage permit to the petitioner to operate a vehicle on the route specified in his application. 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, State 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, State 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...
Giridhar Gopal Dalmia and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
The Court:-This application is taken out in connection with W.P No.2099 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court on 15th June, 2009. In the present application, prayers have been made in substance for correction of recordable of certain submissions of Mr.Mookherjee, learned Senior Advocate in the order passed on 15th June, 2009. On 27th August, 2009, this matter was heard at length and the order passed by this Court by which the writ petition was disposed of was modified to the extent submissions of Mr.Mookherjee, learned Senior Advocate was recorded in the order. The manner in which such modification shall be made has been clarified in the order passed on 27th August, 2009. I do not consider it necessary to make any further modification of the order passed by this Court on 15th June, 2009, so far as the question of recordal of submission of Mr.Mookherjee is concerned. Other points on which modification of the said order was prayed for is over use of the expression adjudication in ...
Lokenath Foundation Vs. Sailendra Prasad Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
The Court : AP No.370 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 12th August, 2008. GA NO.2577 of 2009 was filed to set aside and/or recall that order. That was also dismissed for default on 13th January, 2010. This application has been filed in June, 2010 to set aside and/or recall both the orders and to restore the original AP No.370 of 2008 to the file. This application is moved in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents. I find that the exclusive ground is the ground of illness of the lawyer for the petitioner. I tried to inquire from the respondents counsel as to whether the petitioner has derived any advantage out of such dismissal. No such advantage is apparent. Since it is the ground of the lawyer, I accept that without making any further inquiry. Moreover, the litigant should not suffer. In the circumstances, the orders dated 12th August, 2008 and 13th January, 2010 passed in AP No.370 of 2008 and GA No.2577 of 2009 respectively are set aside and/or recalled, by cond...
Sree Sree Iswar Radha Gobinda Jew and ors. Vs. Sailendra Chandra Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
The Court : - I had the advantage of hearing the application, GA 2605 of 2008, of Prabir Ghosh( the applicant in short) who was the highest offerer to buy the property in question, namely at 65, Sisir Bhaduri Sarani, Kolkata 700006 for Rs. 10,50,000/-. Needless to mention, for the proper adjudication of the application on merits, I heard the submissions of all the learned Counsel including Mr. Pradip Dutt, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the application of the applicant and the other parties to the application respectively. After considering the application on merits I was of the opinion that the orders as prayed for in the application should be granted. However, since the parties and their respective learned Counsel including Mr. Dutt appeared from time to time at the hearing, I said that this matter should be settled and the order dated 23 July 2008 passed by me should be recalled and the property in question should be sold and conveyed to the applicant, Prabir Ghosh. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »