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.
Gautamkundu and ors. Vs. Kamal Kumar Bansal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
The Court : By this application, the defendant in a suit alleging infringement of copyright has prayed for stay of operation of the order impugned in this appeal by which the Learned Single Judge passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the present appellants from incorporating three particular sons mentioned in the order impugned or the publicity and other material relating thereto and depicting the title of the said film in the same symbolized form as the plaintiffs original film `Ogo Bodhu Sungari. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are of the view that before decision of the appeal on merit there is no just reason of varying the interim order granted by the Learned trial Judge. We propose to hear out the appeal in the next week. Learned Counsel for the appellants is directed to prepare requisite number of informal paper books containing all relevant papers and documents used in the trial Court along with...
Malconna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
The Court :-The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated August23, 2010 are questioning the notice of Oriental Bank of Commerce dated April 26, 2010 (at p.83) issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the possession notice dated August 9, 2010 (at p.91) issued under section 13(4) of the Act. The Bank previously issued a section 13(2) notice dated January 22, 2010. The petitioners objection to the notice was turned down and notice under section 13(4) was issued. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners appealed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. During pendency of the appeal the Bank issued a letter dated April 26, 2010 (at p.82) cancelling the previous section 13(2) notice and issuing the second section 13(2) notice dated April 26, 2010. In their objection dated May 21, 2010 (at p. 85) the petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the Bank to issue the second section 13(2...
Coal India Ltd. Vs. Nicco Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
THE COURT : There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge who has directed the petition of winding up to be admitted on certain terms and conditions after hearing the parties. Operative portion of the order reads as under : . . . The result is that the petition is entitled ex debito justitiae to have its petition admitted. CP No. 483 of 2009 is admitted in the principal sum of Rs.7,77,980.80 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the decree till payment. If the company furnishes security for such amount, inclusive of interest, in favour of the Registrar, Original Side, and pays costs assessed at 5000 GM to the petitioner within a fortnight of the petitioners written demand enclosing an authenticated copy of this order, the petition will remain permanently stayed. In the event such security is presented, the Registrar will invest the same by way of a fixed de...
Amitava Ganguly Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
The Court : As directed by us, the petitioner has placed today the report in respect of the insecticides in question which, according to the petitioner, is ineffective. The same is taken on record. Respondent Union of India is directed to get the report examined through the Respondent No.4 National Institute of Malaria Research. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of the report direct to the Respondent No.4 so that time is saved in obtaining their response. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India wants further time to file affidavit in the matter. We may record that on 30th July 2010 similar request was considered by this Court and time was granted to file Affidavit-in-opposition but it appears that the concerned officer of the Respondent No.3 has not yet finalized the draft affidavit-in opposition. We make it clear that if no affidavit-in-opposition is filed within a period of four weeks from date, we will be constrained to summon the Officer-in-charge in the matter to ...
Sant Bux Singh Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors..
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
The Court : Learned Counsel for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that as directed by this Court, the Municipal Commissioner has prepared necessary report which is voluminous. He would like to go through it and satisfy himself and then tender before Court for which time may be granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the report be directed to be furnished to him so that he can assist the Court. Let the report be filed in this Court after two weeks. Thereafter this Court would pass appropriate orders. Time to file affidavit-in-reply stands extended by two weeks. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....
Sri Soumendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. Nani Gopal Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
The Court :- In spite of service of notice none appears for the respondent. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court to-day be kept on record. It appears that this application has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: The petitioners father and his two uncles were entered into an agreement with the first respondent on 21.03.1996 for the purpose of development of the premises No. 12B, Ganga Prasad Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Kolkata 700 0025.The petitioner claimed that the first respondent was required to develop the property and make over three several flats consisting of 625sq meter approximately as well as two garage space to the petitioners father and also to the said two uncles, who are the preformed respondents in this application. It is also a term of the contract that in case of handing over the ownership to the petitioner or to his uncles the petitioner and the proforma respondents can claim damages at the rate of Rs.50/-...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
The Court :-The respondent-borrower has come up before this Court for discharge of the order dated 19th July, 2010. Their submission is that cheques worth Rs.5,45,800/= were advanced by them to the petitioner-financier but were not encashed by them. This is disputed by the petitioner-financier. But, what is more important is that it is admitted by both the parties that the above amount is due and payable now under the subject hire purchase agreement. Accordingly, I pass the following interim order: a) The petitioner-financier will immediately hand over the above cheques if available with them to the respondent-borrower. The respondent2 borrower will immediately stop payment of the above cheques concurrently. b) Thereafter, a fresh cheque/cheques for Rs.5,45,800/= will be issued by them in favour of the petitioner-financier. c) This exercise should be completed by 3rd September, 2010. The Receiver for the time being will make an inventory of the vehicle only and file a report before thi...
Smt. Sumitha Roy Vs. the K.M.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
A comprehensive report has been submitted by Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned Special Officer appointed by this Court. This report broadly confirms the content of the report of the Director General (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation as regards position of the subject premises. I find from the report that the part of the building which collapsed is not in occupation of any occupier other than the owner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for an order of demolition before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in respect of that part of the building and if such an application is made, appropriate direction shall be issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation as early as possible but not later than six weeks from the date of submission of such application. As regards the part of the building which requires repair, Mr. Behani, learned senior counsel appearing for the corporation apprises this Court that independent sanction is necessary from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The pe...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Virendra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
The Court : It is submitted today that although the Receiver has visited the possible location of the equipment on two occasions, its location could not be ascertained. The respondents were not available at their place of residence. In that view of the matter, I direct the respondents to inform by letter the whereabouts of the vehicle to the Receiver within a week from the date of communication of this order, failing which appropriate measures have to be taken by the Court. List this application once again in the same position on 9th September, 2010. The report of the Receiver to this effect filed in Court today be taken on record. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings....
Shimansu Vyaparik Kendra Ltd. Vs. Rajshahi Transport and Trading (P) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
The Court :- This is an application for stay of my order dated 10th August, 2010 admitting the winding up application and directing publication of advertisement. The respondent company by this application has come up with a reasonable proposal, wanting stay of its winding up. At the moment the Company is able to pay Rs.4 lakhs in five equal installments. The learned Counsel for the petitioning creditor says that the amount payable according to the Terms of Settlement on which the winding up was founded is higher, nearing about five lakhs of rupees as of date. Therefore, I stay the order dated 10th August, 2010 on the following conditions:- (a) There will be an unconditional stay of the order dated 10th August, 2010 for two weeks. (b) The Company will pay four lakhs of rupees in five equal monthly installments of Rs.80,000/- each commencing from September, 2010 and payable by the 7th of the month. In breach of either of the above conditions this stay will stand vacated and the petitioni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »