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.
Ashoke Kumar Pramanick Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
The Court :- The writ petitioner, Ashoke Kumar Pramanick who is an M.R.Dealer and holds a licence issued under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003(control order, in short) initiated the above writ proceedings in this Court essentially praying for a declaration that Budge Budge Case no. 95 dated 25 February 2009 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is bad without jurisdiction void ab initio, a writ of mandamus against the respondents for rescinding or canceling the FIR/complaint dated 22 May 2009 and the suspension-cum2 show cause notice dated 25 May 2009 on the basis of which a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. The writ petition also contains certain prayers for interim protection such as direction upon the second respondent herein and an injunction against the respondents in support of the above prayers and stay of the above police case no. 95 dated 25 May 2009. The prayers seeking other writs such as prohib...
Leading Treadecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swarnim Paaper and Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
The Court : Leave is given to the petitioner to correct the scheme and the petition in accordance with paragraph 2[e][i] of the affidavit. Two usual observations/objections have been made by the Central Government in their affidavit, regarding sanction of the scheme. The first is with regard to insufficient authorized capital of the transferee company to allot shares to members of the transferor companies; the second objection/observation is with regard to accounting standard 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that the authorized capital of the transferee company will be increased expeditiously and that the said accounting standard would also be adhered to. On the basis of such assurance and on such condition, this objection is overruled. Regarding the pending prosecution I would say that the pendency of prosecution will not hold up sanction of the scheme. Prosecution may be continued against the persons involved. I also note that it has been recorded in the affid...
Delta International Ltd. Vs. Ansuman Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
THE COURT: Instead of taking up the stay application, by consent of parties we take up the appeal. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble First Court refusing to grant leave under Clause-13 of the Letters Patent to transfer the suit which is pending before the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The reason to file this appeal before us is against the observation made by the Hon'ble First Court which reads as follows: ...Assuming for the moment that the petitioner is right in such assertion, the effect of the City Civil Court suit being decided would be that such issue would have been concluded as between the petitioner and the second respondent and may not be agitated again ... Mr. Joy Saha, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended before us that such observation would stand in the way of the parties at the time of hearing of the suits in question which are pending before this Court. Mr. S.N. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel...
Jogesh Kumar Shah and anr. Vs. Smt. Renuka Doshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
The Court:-The present proceeding arises out of P.L.A.No.351 of 2004 which has subsequently been registered as T.S.No.9 of 2009. The present application, being G.A.No.2220 of 2010, has been taken out by one of the executors of the testatrix for recordable of death of the other executor, Vinod Kumar Shah, who passed away on 14th June, 2010. Learned Counsel appearing for Renuka Doshi, the defendant submits that his client has no objection for recordable of death of one of the executors in the manner prayed for in the present application. Before examining the prayer of the petitioner, this Court examined the question as to whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain this application. Subsequently, it was ascertained from the order of assignment of His Lordship the Honble Chief Justice that P.L.A. No.351 of 2004 itself has been assigned to this Court along with G.A.No.710 of 2008. In these circumstances, this being an application in connection with the main suit, I am of the view that...
Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd and anr. Vs. Assetre Construction Comp ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
The Court : The writ petition has been instituted by Kanoria Jute & Industries Ltd. and another [for short, Kanoria] being aggrieved primarily by two notices, dated 17th March, 2009 and 12th January, 2010, issued by the respondent no.1 Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. [for short, ARCIL]. The two notices, which are impugned in the present proceeding, were issued under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, [for short, SARFAESI]. Initially, the first notice dated 17th March, 2009, was issued under Section 13 [2] of SARFAESI by ARCIL and the subsequent notice dated 12th January, 2010 was issued by ARCIL, upon invoking Section 13[4] of SARFAESI. During pendency of the instant writ petition, it appears that another learned Single Bench of this Court has passed a judgment and order in a Civil Revision matter, which was instituted by Kanoria against Bank of India (the respondent no.2 herein), ARCIL (the re...
India Infoline Limited Vs. Central Business Services Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
This is a Section 9 application. After a contested hearing, the parties through their Counsel have settled this application in Court. At their suggestion, the following order is passed: 1) The respondent will restore the electricity connection of the petitioner immediately. In breach of any of the conditions mentioned below, the respondent will be entitled to disconnect electric supply; 2) The petitioner will pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.37,54,800/- being arrear undisputed rent for the period April, 2010 to July, 2010 within 48 hours; 3) For the subsequent period, the petitioner will keep on paying a sum of Rs.9,38,700/- per month as rent to the respondent according to the Agreement; 4) The demand of the respondent towards service charge from April, 2010 till July, 2010 at the rate of Rs.6,70,500/- per month is 26,82,000/- will be paid by the petitioner to Mr. Debanjan Mandal Advocate-on-record of the respondent and Mr. Arvind Kumar Jhunjhunwala Advocate-on-record of the petition...
Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterp.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Own.and Parties Int. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
The Court : Prayer (b) of the petition made by Royal Trading Company, the defendant no.2 reads as follows: (b) The Bank guarantee furnished by the original defendant No.1 be discharged and cancelled or refunded, returned upon the petitioner furnishing appropriate security and/or took guarantee in place thereof for such amount and within such time as may be determined by this Honble Court. On 9th July, 2010 Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner Royal Trading Company submitted that he shall press his aforesaid application provided a renewed bank guarantee in favour of the plaintiff is furnished strictly in terms of the original bank guarantee. Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 submitted that the bank guarantee has been renewed strictly in terms of the original bank guarantee which is confirmed by Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff. This Court was inclined to pass an order in terms of prayer (b)...
Kotak Mahindrs Prime Ltd. Vs. Printers Traders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
petitioner some time in May, 2010, it is submitted. As such, the time to execute the award has not yet matured. The petitioner apprehends that before such time arrives, the respondents will frustrate the award by disposing of the subject matter of the agreement, if not already disposed of and by disposition of their assets. It is submitted that an earlier section 9 application was preferred. Although a Receiver was appointed he could not take possession of the vehicle. 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. In the circumstances, I appoint Ms. Sima Roy, Advocate, Bar Association Room No.6 as Receiver at a remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner to make inventory and take possession of the vehicle. Receiver to file the report by the returnable date. The Receiver will be entitled at liberty to appoint an agent but must exercise full control over such ...
Builder and Supply Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
This is a Section 11 application. The petitioner by their letter dated 27th January, 2010 had called upon the General Manager, N. F. Railway, Maligaon to appoint an Arbitrator, as disputes had allegedly arisen out of an agreement dated 12th September, 2005 between the parties. That agreement contained an arbitration clause, which is Clause 64 of the Railways General Conditions of Contract. Since the claim is over Rs.10 lakhs, Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) applies. It says that the Railways will send a panel of more than three names of gazetted Railway officers to the contractor. The contractor could suggest upto two names out of the said panel for appointment as the contractors nominee. The General Manager was to appoint one out of those names suggested as the contractors nominee and appoint the balance Arbitrators, together being three in number. While so appointing, the General Manager would also nominate the presiding Arbitrator. By their letter dated 21st April, 2010, the Railways sent a pan...
Ajit Kr. Talukdar and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court, Ca ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
appears for the official liquidator This is an application by the contributories/their heirs of the company (in liqn.), to take the company out of such state. It has been submitted by Mr. Basak that the only real claim is that of the secured creditor bank, whose dues would be arranged to be paid by them. Out of the available funds the unsecured creditors can be paid. I give the applicant a chance to take the company out of the winding up. Let short affidavits be filed. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 24th August 2010. List this application as Company Matter Adjourned in the monthly list of September, 2010. Affidavit-in-reply may be filed in the meantime. Meanwhile the applicant is to take steps to negotiate with the bank so that this application can become fruitful. Till 17th September 2010 or until further orders of this Court whichever is earlier the official liquidator will not proceed with further with the liquidation of the company. All parties are to act on a signed photocopy...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »