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.
Premier Engineering Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : This is an application to set aside the judgment upon award dated 26th March, 1997. I find that this application was taken out sometime in April, 1997. It is astonishing that such application is pending, after a lapse of 13 years. The award is for a sum of a little over of Rs.1,00,000/-. By virtue of this application there is an injunction restraining the respondent from realising the award. The short ground on which this application is made is that the notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was not received by the petitioner. Hence, they could not take out an application to set aside the award. Therefore, the decree is passed without challenge to the award and behind their back. If this application succeeds on this technical ground, then fresh time would start running for the petitioner to make a setting aside application. In the event a setting aside application is filed, then that application would have to be heard. Only then a decree may be passed. The...
M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Art Jewellers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court: This is an application for amendment of the plaint in a suit filed for recovery of gold that had apparently been made over by the plaintiff to the first defendant. The plaintiff says that upon a special officer being appointed on an interlocutory application in the suit, it was discovered that there was no gold at the Falta Export Processing Zone which was under the special custody of the customs department. In such view of the matter an amendment has been sought for the money equivalent of the quantum of gold and for a decree against the bank and the customs officials. The bank, the customs authorities, the customs officials and the first defendant have all been served but no affidavit-in opposition has been filed. It is submitted on behalf of the third defendant that the amendment seeks to change the cause of action. The grievance is that an increase quantum is now sought which was not reflected earlier and that some of the reliefs originally claimed have been deleted. Th...
Victor Moses and Company and anr. Vs. Chamaria Properties Pvt. and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court :- By consent of the parties, the following measures shall be taken by the Consumers and the landlord of the premises in question under the supervision of the Administrator. 1. The licensed electrical contractor appointed by the Administrator shall submit a comprehensive report indicating test results of all the consumers installation in the main entrance of the building who have their meters on the Southern side of the building together with the respective remedial measures to be taken by those consumers whose installations are found to have certain defects including the respective cost involvement thereof, to the Administrator with a copy to CESC within seven days from the date of the order. CESC, in consultation with the Chief Electrical Inspector or his representative, may suggest any amendment of such remedial measures as indicated in the said report within a period of three days from the date of receipt of such report. The Administrator shall, within a period of two day...
Rajendra Kr.Jajodia Vs. Puja Jajodia (Nee Roy)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2010
The Court : The plaintiff-husband has applied for amendment of the plaint by incorporating an additional paragraph to reflect an additional allegation that the husband now brings against the wife. The paragraph proposed to be incorporated alleges that the wife was previously married and that there is a marriage registration certificate to such effect. The wife has denied the allegation and says that the amendment has been initiated with ulterior motive and for collateral purpose to prejudice the Court in the matter of the custody of the child and in the matter relating to maintenance. The wife says that the alleged marriage registration certificate is not a marriage registration certificate at all. It is further contended on behalf of the wife that the very nature and character of the suit will be changed if the amendment is incorporated. The first objection raised by the wife relates to the merits of the allegation sought to be incorporated which should, ordinarily, not be gone into ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramchadbhai Virabhai Rabari and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
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 22nd September, 2000, between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The subject matter of the agreement is an excavator, whose value is Rs.31,59,607/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 6th July, 2010. The dues of the respondents towards the petitioner as on the date of termination was Rs.23,74,543/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. 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. As the notice was sent to the respondents on 8th September, 2010, and the respondents are in Gujrat, I give another opportunity to the respondents to appear. Therefore, I am not passing an order for possession. Therefore, on the above ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Paramjeet Kaur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court : Here a consent award was passed. Prior to the consent award, in a Section 9 application, AP No.592 of 2008, this Court passed an order on 11th May, 2009 confirming orders in terms of prayers (C) and (e). One of the prayers is injunction. Subsequently, I am told, that the respondent no.1 died. In his place the present respondent no.1 was substituted. It is submitted that the original order of injunction does not bind the present respondent. Affidavit of service has been filed. It is submitted that the respondents have been served, which submission is accepted. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, there is no opposition to the case of the petitioner. Hence, I pass a fresh order of injunction restraining the respondents from transferring or parting with possession of the equipment/equipments in question. But the other prayers cannot be granted. Since a consent award has been passed the remedy of the petitioner is in enforcement of that consent award. Therefore, libert...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chandra Chur Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court : This appeal is directed against an order dated 18th March, 2010 on an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts of the case are briefly stated as follows: The respondent had been operating as a dealer and running a petrol pump at a prominent location in Burdwan since 1972 under an agreement which was entered into between the parties on 11th October, 1972. It appears from the clauses mentioned therein, particularly from the recital as follows : And whereas the Corporation has installed and/or will instal at and under the said premises the apparatus and equipment described in the Second Schedule hereto (hereinafter called the outfit). It further appears that under Clause 3 of the said agreement it has been provided as follows : 3. The Agreement shall remain in force for ten years from __ day of 197 and continue thereafter for successive periods of one year each until determined by either party by giving three mon...
M/S. Murarka Cables and Conductors Ltd. Vs. Rural Electrification Boar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court : An interesting question arises in the present execution proceedings launched by an Indian party who is the awardholder in an arbitral reference conducted in Bangladesh where the governing law provided for the Bangladesh law to be applicable. The judgment-debtor is alleged to be a wing of the Republic of Bangladesh. The award-holder has obtained the permission under Section 86(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to launch the execution. The Bangladesh party says that it has no asset in this country. The Bangladesh party says that even if it is otherwise permissible for an award passed in arbitration proceedings in Bangladesh to be carried to India without the award being made a rule of Court under the Bangladesh law, the jurisdictional fact which would allow an Indian Court to entertain such application under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be the existence of the assets of the foreign party within jurisdiction. The application under Section 49 o...
Kamalapur Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. Dena Bank.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court : After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are not inclined to grant stay of the operation of the order during the 2 pendency of the appeal. Any step taken in the meantime will abide by the decision of the appeal. However, the appellant is directed to prepare eight copies of informal paper book containing all relevant papers and the order impugned and the Memorandum of Appeal within three weeks from today. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed. Let the appeal be added in the list one week after reopening. Since the respondent has entered appearance, the appeal be treated as ready as regards service. The respondent will be at liberty to file supplementary paper book for incorporating some other papers which were used in the trial Court but not incorporated in the paper book. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formali...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Sanjay Kotkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
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 21st April, 2009 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an excavator, whose value is Rs.17,79,000/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 25th August, 2010. The dues as on 25th August, 2010 of the respondents towards the petitioner were Rs.12,70,647/-. Arbitrator has been appointed. 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. The service is deemed to have been effected as against respondent no.1 because he has refused service according to the postal endorsement, it is submitted. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [f] of the petition. I appoint M...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »