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.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shambhu Nath and Brothers and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
This Letters Patent appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for injunction based on the allegation of passing off and is directed against order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the said learned judge disposed of an application filed by the appellant for variation of the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted and decided to continue such ad interim order till the disposal of the application for injunction on merit with the only modification that the appellant would be entitled to execute the export order dated May 2, 2010 but the sale proceeds thereof should be kept in a separate bank account. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeal. The respondent before us filed a suit in the Original Side of this Court being C.S. No.133 of 2010 thereby praying for the following relief: a) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents and assigns or any other person ac...
Gpsk Commodities Pvt Limited Vs. Kamalpur Sugar and Industries Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court :- There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The appeal is directed against an order dated 26th July, 2010. Instead of hearing the stay petition by consent of parties we hear out the appeal by treating the appeal as on the days list and disposed of by the following order:- The only grievance of the appellant-petitioning creditor that the claim of the petitioning creditor has already been admitted before the Company Court to the extent of Rs.6,60,692/- and the company prayed before the Court for 24 equal monthly installments which have been granted along with interest @ 7% p.a. and that too being simple interest calculated at the yearly rest on the said amount. The grievance of the petitioning creditor is that the installments which have been granted by the Court should be less than 2 the installments granted at the time of disposing of the winding up petition. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and as the Company has agreed before us that ...
Smt. Sunitha Roy Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors..
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court :-In this writ petition, the prayer in substance of the petitioner is to permit her to demolish a portion of premises No.16-B, Jaykrishna Pal Road, Kolkata-700023 and carry out repair work in other parts of the premises. However, part of the premises is in occupation of the two occupants, who are also impleaded as Respondent Nos.11 and 12 in this writ petition. In my view, any direction upon the Corporation cannot be issued by the Writ Court which would in reality result in demolition of part of the building, which is in occupation of any other occupants. To do so, an appropriate direction of the Civil Court would be necessary. Mr.Deb Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the portion of the premises which his client seeks to demolish is not in occupation of any other occupant. No one appears on behalf of the Private Respondents when the matter is called on for hearing. Urgency has been pleaded by Mr.Deb Roy, learned Counsel on behalf of the...
Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited. Vs. Tata Chemicals Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
THE COURT: This matter has been mentioned by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra on behalf of the respondent thereby praying for extension of stay of operation of our order dated 23rd July, 2010. Mr. Mitra contends that his client obtained the certified copy of the said order on 12th August, 2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we extend the stay for a period of a fortnight from today. We make it clear that we will not grant any further stay in future. It is further pointed out that in the said Judgement and Order dated 23rd July, 2010 there are typographical mistakes in the name of one of us (Prabhat Kumar Dey, J.). Let the mistake be corrected accordingly. Xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties subject to their compliance with the requisite formalities. ...
Gobinda Chandra Dey and and. Vs. the Commissioner of Industries and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : Learned advocate for the petitioner prayed for liberty to file a supplementary affidavit. Such leave is granted. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation is represented but the private respondents are not represented. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner does not contain any A/D card. Considering that the petitioner prayed for liberty to file supplementary affidavit and such liberty has been granted, the petitioner is directed to serve the private respondents once again. A copy of the supplementary affidavit shall be served on each of the respondents. The private respondents shall be served with a copy of the petition in addition to the copy of the supplementary affidavit. Such service shall be effected upon the private respondents under registered cover with A/D. Let the matter be listed after three weeks.It will be open to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to file the opposition to the supplementary affidavit within the aforesaid date. ...
Singhal Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Singhal Enterprises [Jharsuguda] Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : Prayer for adjournment is made by Mr. Chatterjee on the ground that his clients appeal and stay application are awaiting consideration before the Honble Appeal Court. However, till date there is no stay. This application is for enforcement of a Scheme of de-merger. It appears that a family settlement on which such Scheme rests is under challenge in CS No.47 of 2008. A judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2010 was passed in an interim application in that suit where the family settlement has not been disturbed. An appeal from that order is pending before the Honble Court of Appeal. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that if an order is passed touching the family settlement in that appeal or the stay application, it would have a direct bearing on this application. This prayer for adjournment is resisted by the respondents with great force on the ground that there is no stay by the Appeal Court. Further, it is urged with great conviction that I should immediately proceed to hear...
The Assurgent Technology Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sangita Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : This is a winding up application coming up for admission. The petitioning creditor seeks refund of a sum of Rs.1 lac, represented by a draft dated 14th December, 2007 of the State Bank of India for Rs.1 lac, in favour of the Company which has not been encashed by them .Such draft was forwarded by the petitioner to the Company during her employment. If this draft is returned, the petitioner would be able to recover such sum from the bank. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to such refund, in any event. The statutory notice at page 32 of the petition could not be served on the company as the postal documents were returned with the remark left. The winding up application also has met with the same fate. Affidavit of service has been filed to the effect that notice of this application was pasted on the premises of the registered address of the company. Such affidavit of service is taken on record. None appears for the company. Therefore, this winding up application...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaydeep C. Dahatonde and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : As the Receiver could not be located, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I directed the matter to appear in the list as To Be Mentioned. Today, such submission is renewed. Accordingly, I appoint Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Advocate, 6 Old Post Office Street, 3rd floor, Room No.79/19, in place and stead of the appointed Receiver in the order dated 3rd August, 2010 on the same terms and conditions. The returnable date is extended till 15th September, 2010. Receiver and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings....
Amitava Nath and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
GA No. 2439 of 2010 G.A.2615 of 2010 APOT 430 of 2010 W.P.1352 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side AMITAVA NATH & ANR. Appellants Versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ramen Bose with Mr. Mohan Kumar Putatunda, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Alok Banerjee with Mr. A.Sarkar, Advocates BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. ABDUL GHANI Date : 18th August, 2010. Re : G.A. 2439 of 2010 THE COURT : This application has been filed for condo nation of delay in preferring the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in this application, we are satisfied that sufficient reasons have been furnished and adequate grounds have been mentioned for condo nation of delay in preferring the appeal. Therefore, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Department is directed to register the appeal if the same...
M/S. Grand Fashions(India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Continental Carriers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court : This is a winding up application coming up for admission. There is no trace of the company. Affidavit of service has been affirmed and filed. The endorsement of the postal authorities is left. On 16th August, 2010 when this application was called on before me and none appeared for the company, I directed the application to appear today as Company Matter [Adjourned] [Unopposed]. It has accordingly appeared. None appears for the company. The claim of the petitioning creditor arises out of a contract between them and the company by which the petitioning creditor used to facilitate export of the companys goods, as appears from the statutory notice and the averments in the petition. The claim is for Rs.24,07,075/- as on 24th September, 2005. The statutory notice dated 6th February, 2006 has not been replied to. Therefore, there is a presumption of insolvency. Therefore, on the above prima facie case, I admit this winding up application. This application is to be advertised once ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »