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.
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Puhan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court: Report of the Receiver is taken on record. It appears that there is some discrepancy in the description of the vehicle. The word equipment in the order dated 2nd August, 2010 should read as vehicle. Now it seems, according to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this vehicle was initially purchased and hypothecated but subsequently it was exchanged by the borrower from the dealer of the car for another vehicle. The particulars of this vehicle are in paragraph 6(e) at page 4 of the supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the asset mentioned in the order dated 2nd August, 2010 be understood to mean the vehicle obtained upon exchange. But I also make it clear that although the Receiver may take possession of this vehicle, it is not the subject matter of the agreement as described in the order dated 2nd August, 2010. The order dated 2nd August, 2010 is modified accordingly. I make this application returnable on 22nd November, 2010. The Receiver be paid...
Jalan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hind Palace Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court :-This is a Section 9 application. This is a fight between the petitioner and the owners of a well-known cinema known as Hind Cinema, in Calcutta. According to the petitioner, it wanted to take the property on lease to run a multiplex with two screens. It relies on a document dated 26th June, 2009 at page 30. It is signed by both the parties. It is to the following effect: LEASE RENT 9,50,000 (Inclusive of Service Tax) TERM PERIOD 10 Years + 10 Years LOCK IN 5 Years SECURITY DEPOSIT (INTEREST FREE) 40 lacs. RENT INCREASE 15% increase after 5 years However after 5 years if the business conditions of the cinema industry is adverse then a lower rate increase mutually acceptable to both shall be applicable. RENT FREE FIT OUT PERIOD 5 months (one month grace) FITOUT COMMENCEMENT DATE 1st July 2009 SUBSIDY After JDPL has availed its subsidy HIND shall be entitled to claim any excess over this amount as per expenses submitted. SCOPE OF WORK As per new annexure already agreed between...
Nathmulls Tea Exports International and ors. Vs. Golden Tips Tea Compa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
GA No. 2467 of 2010 is an application by the defendant for recalling an order dated July 8, 2010 by which the plaintiffs interlocutory application in the suit for infringement and passing-off was allowed in the defendants absence. The defendant says that the defendant had written to erstwhile advocates representing it for obtaining a change and copies of correspondence reveal that several requests and reminders were issued over several months but the change was not granted. The defendant says that by the time the change was obtained by it, the papers were not handed over. The defendant says that despite its best diligence, meaningful steps could not be taken to engage counsel prior to the plaintiffs application being taken up on July 8, 2010. Though the plaintiffs oppose the application, since it is evident that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from taking meaningful steps to defend the plaintiffs interlocutory application, the order dated July 8, 2010 is recalled. GA No...
Lucky Exports Vs. the Controller of Patents and Designs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : This appeal has been filed under section 36 of the Designs Act 2000. The case of the appellant is that Coaster Brake Hub was manufactured and marketed by Russia since 1920. Subsequently, the appellant acquired the design of such Coaster Brake Hub and started manufacturing and marketing the same. It later transpired that the respondents were registered in the said design since 2005 and in fact a suit was filed in the court of the District Judge Ludhiana. As no interim relief was granted, an appeal was filed on 24th July, 2009. An order was passed in view of the application filed under section 19 of the 2000 Act directing that the same be heard and in the event the same was dismissed, the respondents would be precluded from manufacturing the product registered. The application under section 19 of the 2000 Act was heard and disposed of by order dated 25th August, 2010 whereby the application for cancellation has been rejected. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed and order...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Dharamender Yada and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : It appears from the report of the Receiver filed in Court that in stead of complying with the order of the Court to take physical possession, the Receiver entered into an enquiry as to the dues of the respondents, in their presence and in the presence of the representative of the petitioner. Therefore, I immediately discharge the Receiver. I appoint Mr. Goutam Das, Bar Association, Room No.13 on the same terms and conditions. Since the respondents are represented by Counsel, let affidavits be filed. Affidavit in opposition be filed by 30th September, 2010. List this application on 22nd November, 2010. Affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime. Compliance in the meantime. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
The Dibrugarh Company Ltd. Vs. Teesta Valley Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : Let affidavit-in-opposition be given within fortnight. Reply, if any, be given within a week after reopening. Let the matter appear two weeks after reopening. Let there be unconditional stay of operation of the order for a week from today. If within a week from today the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.6 Lac with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, the stay will continue till the disposal of the application. If the amount is so deposited, the Registrar, Original Side will invest the amount in any nationalized Bank in short term deposit and will go on renewing the same until further order of this Court. In default of deposit of the aforesaid amount the interim stay will stand vacated after the expiry of one week from today. All parties including the Registrar, Original Side are to act on a Photostat certified copy of this order. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formaliti...
Murat Viniyog Ltd. Vs. Bijay Kumar Kajaaria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court:-This appeal is admitted. The question to be determined in this appeal is a question of law whether the applicant before the Company Law Board had the required support and requisite majority to apply under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal will be heard on this question and also other questions of law that might arise from the order of the Company Law Board. By consent of the parties the appeal can be heard on existing papers. Any party may file a supplementary paper book, after serving a copy to the other side. List this appeal for hearing on 24th September, 2010. The Company Law Board will not proceed with the concerned application or applications till the disposal of this appeal. Liberty to mention in case this appeal is not disposed of at an early date. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Commissioner of Customs (Port) and ors. Vs. Agrim Sampada Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : None appears in spite of substituted service by way of publication through newspaper. After hearing Ms. Shampa Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and after going through the explanation given in the application, we are convinced that the appellants have made out sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. We thus condone the delay in filing appeal. Regarding the application for stay, the learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to serve copy of the application upon the respondents informing that the matter will appear after fortnight and to file affidavit of service at the time of hearing. The appellants will serve the copy of the application at the registered office of the respondents at Mumbai. No interim order at this stage is necessary. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. ...
Suman Sasmal. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
It appears that a letter dated 26th April, 2010 was issued to the petitioner offering permanent stage carriage permit to the petitioner to operate a stage carriage on route no. K-5 from Labani, Salt Lake Labani to Joka, as specified in paragraph 2 of the petition, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions in the said offer letter. In terms of the said offer letter, the petitioner was required to procure a Bharat Stage III compliant vehicle of 2010 model. The period of validity of the offer letter was extended till 31st July, 2010. The petitioner claims to have obtained loan from Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and purchased a vehicle. The registration fee appears to have been deposited on 28th July, 2010 within the period of validity of the letter of offer. In terms of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and in particular Rule 141, the Transport Authority is empowered to extend the validity of an offer letter for such period as it might consider reasonable, but not exceeding s...
Sri Niladri Sen Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : This is an application for modification of the final order dated July 6, 2010 passed in this writ petition. By virtue of the above order, the writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent-authority to release an amount of Rs. 72,035.34 in favor of the petitioner together with interest at the prevailing rate on fixed deposit in a nationalized Bank from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of payment within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he prayed for payment of interest on an amount of Rs. 5,40,128.41 for delayed payment of that amount. Since the writ application was disposed of on July 6, 2010, without granting the above relief to the petitioner, it is not permissible for this Court to pass the above order in favor of the petitioner at this stage. In view of the above, this application stands dismissed. There will, however, be no order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »