Kolkata Court September 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.
Besco Ltd. Vs. Rubbertex
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : This is an application filed under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that for supply of goods sold and delivered a notice was issued on 24th May, 2008. Such notice was addressed at both the registered office of the company as well as at the administrative office and was received thereat. In spite of receipt, no reply has been given to the statutory notice. Therefore, the inability to pay of the company is evident. In fact, part payments have been made after supply of goods to the sum of Rs.1,71,526.68. There is no contemporaneous document to evidence any dispute raised in respect of the goods supplied. Therefore, the goods have not only been received but also utilized by the company without demur. This, therefore, entitles the petitioner to the order sought. Counsel for the company submits that pursuant to orders passed by the Company Law Board on 13th March, 2006, the control and management of the company has come to be vested i...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Narendra Jagdish Sasan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : This is an application for execution of an award made on July 29, 2009. Copies of the application were forwarded to the judgment-debtors under registered cover. The decree-holder says that the postal acknowledgment cards were not returned. The decree holder has filed an affidavit of service and claims that personal service was attempted on both judgment-debtors and both of them have refused to accept the papers. The decree finds the decree-holder entitled to a sum in excess of Rs.27 lakh. The decree-holder has given credit to payments received after the award and says that an amount in excess of Rs.26.49 lakh is now due. In addition to the order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of column 10 of the Tabular Statement, Mr. Arik Banerjee, Advocate, is appointed Receiver over the vehicle described at paragraph 4 and Annexure B to the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement with a direction to take possession thereof and keep it at a place to be provided by the decree-h...
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
The Court : Let there be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application being ACO No.93 of 2010. The application being ACO No.94 of 2010 is for stay of operation of the order impugned in this appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned in the order impugned, we do not find any reason to stay the operation of the order impugned in this appeal during the pendency of the present appeal. However, it is needless to mention that mutation made pursuant to the order impugned will abide by the result of the present appeal and the same will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in this appeal. We, however, stay the operation of that part of the order impugned by which His Lordship imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-. The application is disposed of. Learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to prepare eight copies of informal paper book containing all re...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahaveer Construction and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
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 31st July, 2007 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, the value of which is Rs.90,16,000/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 21st, October 2009. The dues of the respondents as on 31st August, 2010 towards the petitioner were Rs.31,60,000/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that a Section 17 application has been taken out by the petitioner before the arbitrator. In that Section 17 application the arbitrator passed certain orders for custody of the equipments. But that order could not be carried out. Therefore, this Section 9 application should not be entertained. Mr. Bose submits that the said application before the arbitrator would ...
Sabhajeet Singh Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Pvt.Ltd.(Sefrl) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
THE COURT : Instead of disposal of the stay application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on the days list, as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is at the instance of an applicant under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against an order dated 10th August, 2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed an application under section 34 of the Act by which the appellant challenged the award dated 15th December, 2007 as barred by limitation. Being dissatisfied, the applicant under section 34 of the Act has come up before us. The present appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Act on 22nd April, 2010 on the ground that on 9th April 2010 the appellant, for the first time, came to learn that an arbitration proceeding had been initiated in respect of a hire purchase agreement and in the said arbitration, an award had ...
Abul Kalam Halder Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
The Court : It appears that on August 13, 2010 the Sub Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Baruipur visited the petitioners fair price shop along with the Chief Inspector, Area Inspector and one Inspector of different area and carried out inspection of the fair price shop. An inspection report was prepared recording that the updated rate cum stock board and updated stock registers were found in the fair price shop, but the sales register and the cash memo register were not found. The inspecting team was informed that the aforesaid document was in the house of the `Muhuree. The petitioner was directed to produce the original sales register and the cash memo register in the office of the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Baruipur. In the inspection report it is further recorded that the petitioner was directed to make arrangement for 100% weighment, but could not make such arrangement. It is, thus, apparent that no physical weighment took place. According to the petitione...
M/S. Jensom Nichoson Financial Services Ltd.( in Liq.) Vs. M/S. Ionic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
The Court :-The applicant is a member of a cooperative society in Mumbai. By such membership, the applicant had ownership of a flat in the cooperative society. The cooperative society issued a certificate evidencing such ownership, it is submitted. In or about October, 1997, the applicant took a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the company which is now in liquidation. It deposited such certificate with the company as security for such loan. That loan was repaid in 1998. But the certificate was not returned by the company to the applicant. Thereafter, in 2003 the company went into liquidation. Now its assets are under the control of the Official Liquidator. The applicant wants such certificate back or a no objection from the Official Liquidator to obtain a fresh certificate from the cooperative society. The Official Liquidator is represented by counsel. It is submitted before the Court that the records of the company relating to the transactions are not available with the Official Liquidator, n...
Vishnu Narayan Kashyap and anr. Vs. Santlal Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
The Court : This is an application by the plaintiffs in a partition suit seeking an order against a third party-occupant of a portion of the joint properties who has been allowed to continue in possession on an application in the nature of pro inter esse suo pursuant to an order of November 9, 1981. The order dated November 9, 1981 permitted the pro inter esse suo applicant to continue in possession, without adjudicating its title to the premises, at a monthly payment of Rs.5,500/-. On an appeal from such order of November 9, 1981, an order was made on July 1, 1982 which refused to stay the operation of the order under appeal and directed the first respondent to the appeal (the pro inter esse suo applicant) to pay Rs.5,500/- per month to the Receiver. The appeal was disposed of on August 11, 1987 without the original order of November 9, 1981 passed at the behest of the pro inter esse suo applicant being much altered. What is of relevance at the moment is that the pro inter esse suo ap...
Smitabh Intercon Ltd and anr. Vs. Rosemount Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
The Court : The application for condonation of delay of 7 days only is taken up for hearing first. We have perused the petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent does not stand in the way to allow this petition. Hence this application is allowed. Instead of taking up the stay petition we take up the appeal for hearing by consent of the parties treating the same as on the days list. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 06th July 2010. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:- The plaintiff / respondent sues the defendant on the facts pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff No 1 received an order from Citilink of Moscow for supply of diverse quantities and qualities of bags of an aggregate value of Rs 19,57,872.25p. The plaintiff No 2 also received an order from Elite Pack of Moscow for supply of diverse quantities of such drinking straw of the aggregate value of Rs 92,460 for the purpose of supplying th...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Akr Construction Ltd and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
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 moved ex parte on the ground that till date the respondents have not apprised the petitioner of the exact location of the equipments, which are the subject matter of this application. If notice of this application is given to them, they will quickly remove those assets from the reach of this Court. This application is founded on a hire purchase agreement dated 22nd June, 2009 the subject matters of which are equipments mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition, the value of which is Rs.1,53,82,165/-]. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 9th August, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on the date of termination were Rs.1,51,54,663/-. On the above prima facie case, I pass an order of injunction in terms of prayers [a] valid upto 22nd September, 2010....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »