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.
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Peddibabu Venkatrao Gubbala and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court : Two applications have been filed by one, Ravinder Pal Singh, describing himself as the proprietor of M/s. Noble Enterprises. The first is GA No.2751 of 2010 whereby he seeks to be impleaded as respondent No.3. The second is GA No.2752 of 2010 where he seeks vacation of the interim order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by this Court in AP No.349 of 2010. It is his case that he is the owner of the equipment in question which he purchased from Dubai. There could be no hypothecation of the equipment by the borrower in the hypothecation agreement with an arbitration clause, when the borrower had no title to the property. It may be said now that the Section 9 application was founded on this hire purchase agreement between the financer being Mr. Utpal Boses client and the borrower, the subject of matter of which was the said allegedly hypothecated equipment. This agreement has an arbitration clause on which jurisdiction of this Court was invited. By the interim order a Receiver was ...
Ajit Kumar. Talukdar and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court:-This is an application under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the contributories to vacate the order of winding up. At the time of admission of this application and making of directions for filing affidavits, I had noted that the only real claim was that of the secured creditor bank, namely United Bank of India. The Company was wound up on a claim of the petitioning creditor for Rs.8 lakhs and odd. Today it is represented by Mr.Subimal Mukherjee learned advocate appearing for the said contributories that a sum of Rs.72 lakhs has been paid to the said bank by bank draft. Such bank has issued a no due certificate. A bank draft for Rs.8,01,122/= has been made over in Court by the learned counsel for the applicants to the petitioning creditor. Such payment has been accepted by the petitioning creditor. I have perused the affidavit in opposition of the Official Liquidator. He says that about a sum of Rs.2,00,000/= has been expended by his office towards winding up of the...
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. Vs. United Transport Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court: There was violation of the order dated 25th of August, 2010. I am satisfied that this order was duly communicated by the petitioner to the respondents. By that order they were directed to disclose to the Receiver within 48 hours of its communication, the location of the vehicles. They have not done so. They have also not cooperated with the Receiver, as submitted. In the circumstances, I direct the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station where Charan Sharma and Jay Bhagwan Sharma are carrying on business or residing to ensure their presence in Court on the returnable date to compel them to disclose the location of the vehicles and to consider what steps to be taken for not complying with the said order of this Court. I observe that by the said earlier order the returnable date of this application is 13th of September, 2010. Police Authorities and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joshep Ranjan Fernandes and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court: Affidavit of service filed in Court be taken on record. It is submitted that the respondents have been served, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. I have also examined the Receivers report. In spite of his best efforts the equipment could not be located. In this case there is only an order for inventory. Orders have also been passed authorizing the Receiver to take police help and to appoint an agent to make inventory. It is submitted that the award has been passed but the time to enforce the award has not yet arrived. Therefore, I dispose of this application by directing the Receiver himself or through the agent to take actual physical possession of the equipment and to keep it in his custody. The Receiver will continue to be in possession till further orders are passed by any competent authority in this matter. The Receiver will keep the vehicle in a place provided by the petitioner and at the expense of the petitioner. The Receiver be paid a fu...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court: Pursuant to my order dated 23rd June, 2010 the Receiver visited the possible location of the equipment. The Receiver has filed a report in Court. It is submitted on his behalf that he met the borrower but he was most uncooperative. He did not disclose the whereabouts 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. By a subsequent order dated 9th August, 2010 I had authorized the Receiver to appoint an agent and directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to render help to the Receiver. It is also submitted that arbitral proceedings have commenced. Since arbitral proceedings have commenced I dispose of the application by directing the Receiver himself or through the agent, if, to take possession of the vehicle and keep it in his custody. Before taking possession the Receiver will make a complete inventory of the vehicle in question. The Rece...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Kgn Iron Ores (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court :-Report filed by the Receiver is taken on record. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was notified by them to the petitioner that some parts of the equipment were stolen in September 2009 and that a First Information Report was also lodged. Further, by their letter dated 3rd September, 2010 they informed the petitioner that the equipment was lying at Serajuddin Mines, Berbil, P.S. Bamebari, District- Keonjhar, Orissa. It is more or less admitted that as of now Rs.7,50,000/= has fallen due. Further, arbitration proceedings have commenced. Therefore, if this sum of Rs.7,50,000/= is liquidated by the Respondent in ten equal monthly installments of Rs.75,000/= each, the Receiver will not take any steps in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2010. Each installment is to be paid by the seventh of the month beginning from September, 2010. This will, however, not absolve the respondents from liability to pay the current installments. In default of payment of any of...
Btw Industries Ltd. Vs. Pressman Advertising and Marketing Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
The Court: This is the unfortunate case of the petitioning creditor whose debt of Rs.5 lacs was more or less held by the Court to be due and payable by the company to it. The company was directed to furnish such security at the appellate stage. If the company had prosecuted the appeal, it was likely that the petitioning creditor would have got the amount as a condition for not winding up the company. But the company chose not to prosecute the appeal which was dismissed, on an application made by the petitioning creditor for such purpose. Now the question is what will happen to the security? The petitioning creditor wants this security. The position in law is a little different. After all the security was the fund of the company being held by the registry of this Court. Upon winding up the Official Liquidator has a claim to such fund, as the same is an asset of the company. Therefore, I take a very sympathetic view of the petitioning creditor and direct the Official Liquidator to procee...
Anima Sasmal Vs. State of West Bengal and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for orders on the respondent to extend the period of validity of offer letter no. RTA/137(Con) which expired on 31st July 2010. On or about 25th November 2009 the petitioner applied for grant of a stage carriage permit on route no. K-5 from Salt Lake Labani to Joka and back. Being perportedly aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application the writ petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W. P. No. 48 of 2010. By an order dated 15th January 2010 this Court disposed of the writ application by directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter the application of the petitioner was considered and a letter of offer was issued on 26th April 2010 offering permit to the petitioner subject to compliance by the petitioner of the terms and condition contained in the said offer ...
S.K. Sarawagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the claim of the respondent authorities for stacking charges amounting to about Rs.28 lakhs as per the statement in annexure P-1 of the writ petition. The annexures to the writ petition reveal that immediately on receipt of the bill, the petitioners wrote a letter pointing out that the petitioners had not stored any goods at Noamundi Railway Station and the claim for stacking charges was without basis. The respondent authorities did not decide the issue of whether the petitioners had actually stacked the goods or not, but continued to issue letters reminding the petitioners that about Rs.28 lakhs was outstanding. After hearing Mr. Bandyopadhyay and Mr. Ghosal, appearing for both the parties, the writ application is disposed of by directing the Chief Commercial Manager (FS), South Eastern Railway being the respondent no.3, to treat the writ petition as representation of the petitioners and to take an appropriate decision in accordan...
The Sal Vation Army and anr. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 1147 of 2005, this appeal has been preferred. The impugned order reads such : The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is a valuation made by the KMC at Rs.5 lakh for the quarter commencing from 4th quarter of the financial year 2001-02. The KMC by its notice dated 13th December, 2002 proposed the annual valuation of Rs.6,78,830/- on the following amongst other grounds : i) Revision in area and/or rise to market value of land. ii) Increase in estimated annual rent (less statutory allowance for repairs) on account of (a) redevelopment, addition, alteration or improvement, (b) rise of rent since last valuation, (c) change of the nature of use. The writ petitioner filed an objection dated 11th January, 2003. In the objection not a word dealing with the grounds of revision was spent. The KMC in its affidavit-in-oppositio...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »