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.
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Gurnam Singh Padda and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court:- Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This application is moved ex parte, on the ground that if notice of this application is given to the respondents they will immediately remove the subject matter of the agreement mentioned below, out of reach of the Court. This is a Section 9 application arising out of a hire purchase agreement containing an Arbitration Clause. There is substantial default alleged in payment of installments. The subject matter of the agreement is one truck. The dues was about Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, on the above prima facie case, I pass an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. Prayer (a) of the petition is being limited to symbolic possession only for the time being. I appoint Mr.Ghanashyam Patra, Bar Association Room No.4, Advocate as Receiver at an initial consolidated remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner for AP No.560/558/563 of 2010 to make an inventory of...
Ramayana Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sisisr Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
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 share purchase agreement dated 31st July, 2009 between the parties. The dispute is like this. The petitioner claims to have purchased 35% shares from the respondent nos.2 to 10 in the respondent no.12, a public company. According to them this transfer has not been made perfect by the said respondents by execution of a proper document, although the entire consideration has been paid by the petitioner. This application is moved ex parte on the apprehension that if notice of this application was received by the respondents, they would take steps to frustrate the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Annual General Meeting of the respondent no.12 company is scheduled to be held on 27th September, 2010. If the said respondents, namely, 2 to 10 exercise voting rights in that meeting it would very seriously affect the rig...
Siddharth Gadia Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
Dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-Nigam resulted in a reference being made to an arbitrator being the Deputy General Manager (Broadband) of the Nigam. An award dated 12th September, 2008 was made by the arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition. The same was allowed by an order dated 16th January, 2009. The award was set aside primarily on the ground that the arbitrator had not recorded reasons in support thereof. The arbitrator was directed to proceed afresh by giving reasons in support of his award. He was given liberty to give both parties to the reference a short opportunity to remind him of the facts and the maters in issue in the reference. The arbitrator, while proceeding in compliance with the Courts Order, has made an award dated 21st May, 2009. The concluding portion thereof reads as follows: V E R D I C T :- Having carefully examined the statement of facts and counter st...
RabIn Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court: This writ application is directed against the action of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, in allowing replacement of the vehicle endorsed in permit No.P.St.P.No.05/99(I/R) issued to the petitioner to operate a vehicle on the route Kolkata to Kalyani for a limited period of three months even though the permit is valid till 2014. The vehicle sought to be replaced is a Bharat Stage- II Vehicle. By allowing replacement, the respondent authorities have acknowledged that the vehicle is not unworthy of replacement. If the vehicle can be allowed to be replaced for three months, there is no reason why it cannot be allowed to be operated for as long as the permit is valid. Be it noted that the earlier vehicle was also a Bharat Stage-II Vehicle. But, for the mechanical defect in the vehicle leading to the dispute with its registered owner, the aforesaid vehicle which was also Bharat Stage-II might have been plied for as long as the permit was valid. The writ application is di...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Virendra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court : The earlier Section 9 application, AP No.284 of 2010, was disposed of by me on 9th September, 2010, confirming the order of injunction. It was noticed there that neither the respondents nor the equipment could be located by the Receiver. Therefore, the Receiver was directed to continue as an Officer under the Arbitrator. In case the equipment could be found, he could take its possession and seek ratification of such action from this Court within a period of two weeks from such date. This is another Section 9 application. The petitioner has been able to identify some properties of the respondents mentioned in paragraph 62 of the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks an order for immediate attachment of those properties together with further orders for complete disclosure of their assets by the respondents and for their attachment to secure the claim of the petitioner. This application is moved ex parte on the apprehension that if notice is given, the respondent ...
Sri Shib Sankar Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
In this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, sought a direction on the respondent No.1 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The application of the petitioner is for setting aside of an impugned order dated July 20, 2009 passed by the Principal Secretary, Food & Supplies Department & Commissioner of Food, Government of West Bengal, in an appeal filed by the private respondent. It could perhaps be pertinent to record that an advertisement was issued for grant of license to run a fair price shop at Loharpur under the provisions of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the Order 2003). The concerned respondents prepared a panel of three candidates in which the petitioner was placed in the first position in order of merit and the private respondent was placed in the second position in order of merit. A fair price shop licence was granted to the petitioner under the provisio...
Goutam Mukherjee and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court: This writ application is directed against the action of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, in allowing replacement of the vehicle endorsed in permit No.P.St.P.207/2004(I/R) issued to the petitioners to operate a vehicle on the route Saidpur to Alampur for a limited period of three months even though the permit is valid till 28.05.2014. The vehicle sought to be replaced is a Bharat Stage- II Vehicle. By allowing replacement, the respondent authorities have acknowledged that the vehicle is not unworthy of replacement. If the vehicle can be allowed to be replaced for three months, there is no reason why it cannot be allowed to be operated for as long as the permit is valid. Be it noted that the earlier vehicle was also a Bharat Stage-II Vehicle. But, for the mechanical defect in the vehicle leading to the dispute with its registered owner, the aforesaid vehicle which was also Bharat Stage-II might have been plied for as long as the permit was valid. The writ applicatio...
ishwari Prasad Singh Roy Vs. Sudha Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court: A short point has been taken by the defendant in this suit for recovery of possession in respect of a land which the defendant had occupied under a leave and licence granted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. The defendant says that an application for summary judgment for recovery of an immovable property under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court is available to a landlord but the claim made in the present suit would not be covered by the said provision. On behalf of the plaintiff a judgment reported at 2008(4) Cal LT 113 is cited for the opinion expressed therein at paragraph 10 of the report that notwithstanding the use of the words landlord and tenant in Chapter XIIIA of the Rules, such expressions include lessors and lessees, respectively, and would not be restricted to a landlord and tenant within the meaning of the Premises Tenancy Act applicable in this State. Chapter XIIIA gives a procedural benefit to a plaintiff to short-circ...
Jibanghu Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Sri Deepak Khaitan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court :- It is submitted before us that the dues, which has already been accumulated in this matter, have not been paid to the retired employees. It has also been stated that for the last 47 months they have not been received any pension. To-day, when the matter was called on Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent company submitted that his client is agreeable to pay 5 months pension to each one of them at the moment before Puja Vacation. Accordingly, we direct such amount to be paid on or before one week from date to all the petitioners, who are before us. The balance amount to be paid subsequently and the matter to appear in the list 2 weeks after Vacation. We further make it clear that this order will not stand in the way to settle the petitioners claim with the company. The respective Advocates-on-Record have submitted that they will take necessary steps in the matter so that one time settlement can be reached, if at all, between the parties. I...
Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. Vs. Virgoe Oil and Fats Pte. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
The Court :- The plaintiff claims that the first defendant has attempted to foist contracts on the plaintiff when, in fact, the plaintiff has not entered into the same. The plaintiff is a regular trader in palm oil. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff and its associate concerns have imported palm oil on regular basis from the first defendant. The second defendant is an officer of the first defendant. The third defendant is an Indian broker engaged in the trade of palm oil. It appears to be the fairly accepted position that orders would be placed on the first defendant foreign party by the plaintiff through the third defendant broker and the sales contracts would be forwarded by the foreign seller to the plaintiff buyer through the third defendant broker. The subject-matter of the suit covers three sales contracts or, alleged sales contracts, as the plaintiff would have it all of August 2008. The first is dated August 14, 2008 and the two others are dated August 30 and August ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »