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.
Kaushal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Brindabon Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
The Court : This contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of order dated 22nd December, 1998. The case of the petitioners is that in a suit for specific performance an order of injunction was passed on 22nd December, 1998 restraining the defendant from encumbering, disposing of and/or otherwise alienating the subject land. Subsequently the said order was clarified and it was directed that the plaintiff would construct a boundary wall. Such boundary wall was constructed as will appear from the order dated 19th April, 2000. Subsequently it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the said wall has been demolished and vehicles parked by the alleged contemnor/respondent. Hence the instant application has been filed and orders sought. None appears on behalf of the alleged contemnor/respondent nor has any affidavit been filed for discharge of Rule in Court. As a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 31st March, 2010 has been served on the petitioners a cop...
Suntrack Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyut Kumar Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
Although after the institution of the suit the Writ of Summons was duly served upon the defendants, only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants had entered appearance but did not file any written statement thereafter to contest the suit. The certificates to this effect obtained by the plaintiff from the department dated 8 July 2010 and 9 July 2010 are kept on record duly countersigned. The 1st defendant, however, did not even enter appearance to contest the suit at any point of time. The certificate dated 2 September 2010 obtained by the plaintiff from the concerned department is also kept on record duly countersigned. The plaintiff instituted the suit after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure primarily for a decree for Rs. 5,40,192/- against the defendants jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the above amount. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree for damages of Rs. 10 lakh and alternative...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Juber and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court :-Further to my order dated 15th July, 2010 the Receiver met the respondent. The report filed by the Receiver is taken on record. It appears from the report of the Receiver that the Receiver was able to locate the equipment but thereafter it was removed behind his back before he could take inventory or possession thereof. 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. At the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer (b) is confirmed. The Receiver will henceforth be an officer under the Arbitrator. If the Receiver or his agent is in a position to locate the equipment, he will be entitled to take possession thereof, but must seek ratification of such act from this Court within two weeks from such date. Receiver will be paid a further ad hoc remuneration of 700 GMs. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Receiver and all parties concerne...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Construction and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court :-Further to my order dated 15th July, 2010 the Receiver met the respondent. The report filed by the Receiver is taken on record. It appears from the report of the Receiver that the Receiver was able to locate the equipment but thereafter it was removed behind his back before he could take inventory or possession thereof. 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. At the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer (b) is confirmed. The Receiver will henceforth be an officer under the Arbitrator. If the Receiver or his agent is in a position to locate the equipment, he will be entitled to take possession thereof, but must seek ratification of such act from this Court within two weeks from such date. Receiver will be paid a further ad hoc remuneration of 700 GMs. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Receiver and all parties concerne...
Chandra Prakash Agarwal. Vs. Shyam Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The suit has been filed inter alia claming a decree adjudging the five Deeds of Gift, one dated 28th September, 1995, three dated 2nd September, 1996 and one dated 12th December, 1997, as void for delivery up and cancellation of the same. The disputes in the instant case are family disputes. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 are brothers and the respondent no.1 is the son of the respondent no.2. The proforma respondent is the sister of the petitioner and the respondent no.2. It appears that Smt. Dhanka Devi, mother of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was absolute owner of the land and premises situated at 13, Camac Street, Kolkata - 700 017, measuring about 37 cottahs and 17 Chittaks. The land was apparently leased to Tara Properties Private Limited, by a registered Deed of Lease executed in 1963. The said Tara Properties Private Limited constructed a multistoried building, Gagantara. Subsequently, the northern side of the premises was surrendered by Tara Properties Private ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Bijendra Kumar Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court :-Further to my order dated 15th July, 2010 the Receiver met the respondent. The report filed by the Receiver is taken on record. It appears from the report of the Receiver that the Receiver was able to locate the equipment but thereafter it was removed behind his back before he could take inventory or possession thereof. 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. At the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer (b) is confirmed. The Receiver will henceforth be an officer under the Arbitrator. If the Receiver or his agent is in a position to locate the equipment, he will be entitled to take possession thereof, but must seek ratification of such act from this Court within two weeks from such date. Receiver will be paid a further ad hoc remuneration of 700 GMs. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Receiver and all parties concerne...
Gran Overseas and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
On going through the application and after hearing Ms. Sanyal, this Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the inability of the petitioner to appear, when this writ application was called on for hearing on 26th March, 2010. Ms. Sanyal has very fairly drawn my attention to the fact that after dismissal of the writ application, a subsequent writ petition, being W.P. No.457 of 2010, had been filed. After the attention of this Court was drawn to this writ petition, on the same cause of action, this Court dismissed the said writ application, being W.P. No.457 of 2010, on the ground that the said writ application had been filed suppressing the earlier writ petition, that is the instant writ petition, dismissed by the order dated 26th March, 2010, of which recall has been sought. By an order dated 13th April, 2010, the writ application, being W.P. No.457 of 2010, was dismissed with costs of 300 GMs. The costs have been paid. That writ application was dismissed not on merits, b...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Shivendra Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court : It appears from the report of the Receiver that he has taken possession of one of the two vehicles. Such vehicle is kept in his custody in Jabbalpur. The Receiver could not take possession one of the vehicles as its chassis number was not tallying with the agreement. Therefore, as far as first vehicle is concerned, I direct the Receiver to sell it at the best possible price upon notice to the respondents. This order is warranted because the respondents are not appearing in spite of filing of an affidavit of service. The price realized will first be brought into the account of the Receiver. After deducting expenses of sale and his further remuneration assessed at 700Gms., the Receiver will make over the balance sum to the petitioner. The petitioner will hold such sum to the credit of the arbitration in an interest bearing account. Such exercise to be completed within three months from date. Receiver to file a report and accounts. This application is made returnable on 23rd S...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Ankur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court :- Here, the Receiver has taken possession of the equipment. His report be taken on record. The award has been passed on 10th June, 2010. Affidavit of service has been filed in Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have been served not only with a copy of this application but also with a copy of the order appointing Receiver. one appears for them even today. In the circumstances, I direct the Receiver to sell the equipment at the best price obtained, upon giving a fresh notice to the respondents. Receiver will first bring the sale proceeds into his account. Thereafter, after deducting the expenses of sale and a further remuneration of 700 GMs, the Receiver will make over the balance sum to the petitioner who will hold the same in an interest bearing account to the credit of the arbitration. Such exercise should be completed within three months from date. Receiver will file the report and accounts in the Registry and upon so fili...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Hill View Coals Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
The Court : Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of maintainability. This application is moved ex parte. The apprehension is that if notice of this application is given to the respondents, they will move out the five trucks which are the subject matter of the agreement, so as to make them out of reach of the Court. This is a Section 9 application. It is founded on a loan and guarantee agreement dated 5.9.2008 between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The subject matter of the agreement is five trucks, whose value is Rs.79,70,000/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 3.8.2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on date is Rs.87,76,060/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. I appoint Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mullick, Advocate, Bar Association Room No.15, as Receiver at a...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »