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.
Shawwallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Administrator the Specififed Undertak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court: The application is for rejection of the plaint though the ground which has been urged is contained in a solitary paragraph. The second defendant asserts that in instituting the suit the plaintiff has acted in breach of the arbitration agreement that governs the relationship between the applicant-second defendant and the plaintiff. In course of submission it is said that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the second defendant, but since such ground has not been taken in the application, the same is not liable to be considered. An application in the nature of Order VII Rule 11 to enforce an arbitration agreement is, in itself, misconceived. An application to enforce an arbitration agreement presupposes, in a sense, the validity of the action and is thereafter a request to the judicial authority to hold the parties to their bargain and send them to a reference in accordance with the arbitration agreement. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code or one for r...
M/S. Al Cobex Metals Ltd. Vs. M/S. Paul Refills (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-2010
The Court : None appears in support of GA No.1704 of 2008 even in the second call. GA No.1704 of 2008 is dismissed for default. There will be no order as to costs. GA No.3073 of 2007 is a mistaken number assigned to EC No.105 of 2007. GA No.3073 of 2007 should be struck off the records as one matter cannot carry two numbers. The execution application is in respect of a decree which has been transferred from the Court of the District Judge in Jodhpur. It appears that the decree-holder seeks to execute the money decree against an immovable property of the judgment-debtors situate at Heysham Road. Heysham Road in the Bhowanipur area is well beyond the southern extremity of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on its Original Side. Since the property against which the decree-holder seeks to proceed is beyond jurisdiction, this Court will have no authority to execute the decree. The decree should have been carried before the appropriate Judge in the Alipore Court since the Heysham Roa...
Ramsarup Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court:-This is a Section 11 application. It arises out of a contract between the parties dated 3rd November, 2006. Clause 25 is the Arbitration Clause. An Arbitrator was appointed on 2nd March, 2010 but he resigned his office on 28th June, 2010. Therefore, Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act came into play when a substitute Arbitrator was to be appointed under Section 15(2). This application for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court was filed on 2nd August, 2010. The respondents made the appointment on 4th August, 2010. Section 15(2) enacts as follows:- Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. Sub-section (1) says that the mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate if the arbitrator withdraws from office for any reason. I have been referred to the case of Nucon India (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Vidyut Board (DESU) reported in AIR 2...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Basanta Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : Report filed by the Receiver is taken on record. The Receiver has taken possession of the equipment in question. The respondents are represented. Admitted dues are Rs.6,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the principal sum due is a little less than Rs.7,00,000/-. If interest is added, it is about Rs.12,53,723/- as on date. The respondents are willing to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- immediately. Considering the above admission and prima facie of the parties and the balance of convenience, the following order is passed disposing of this application:- 1) The respondents will pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by bankers cheque or demand draft to the petitioner within 72 hours from now. Further a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- may be paid in nine equal monthly installments commencing from November, 2010. Each installment is to be paid by the 7th of the month. 2) Interest for the period for which installments are granted now may be decided in the arbitration. 3) The rest of the claim may also be...
Kirloskar Brothers. Vs. Kolkata Environmental Improvement Project.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
THE COURT : AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ANNEXURE `N TO THIS APPLICATION AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.11,03,000/- ON 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2010, WE EXTEND THE TIME EARLIER GRANTED ON 10TH AUGUST, 2010 BY THE DIVISION BENCH AS A SPECIAL CASE. THE APPLICATION IS THUS DISPOSED OF BY EXTENDING THE TIME BY GRANTING FURTHER THREE WEEKS TIME TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE WORK. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO FURTHER EXTENSION WILL BE GRANTED. AS THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF WITHOUT INVITING AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION FROM THE RESPONDENT, ANY ALLEGATION MADE IN THE APPLICATION ON THE MERIT OF THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. AS SUGGESTED BY MR. GHOSH, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT, LET A FURTHER SUM OF 1000 GMS. BE PAID TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER FOR THE TIME BEING AS AD HOC PAYMENT OF HIS REMUNERATION. URGENT PHOTOSTAT CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER,...
Uma Shankar Rai Vs. Chairman, Gyan Bharati School
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : This writ application is directed against an order dated June 9, 2003, passed by the respondent no.1 with regard to payment of terminal benefits of the petitioner who was a teacher of gyan Bharati School. Gyan Bharati School, post office Raigunge, district Boardman, was a private school managed by its managing committee. It was not receiving any financial aid from the Government. The above school paid the remuneration of its teachers from its private fund. The above school was a listed school within the meaning of the Code of Regulation for Anglo Indian and Other Listed Schools, 1993 prepared by the Directorate for Anglo Indian Education, Government of West Bengal. The above school was affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 1994. The petitioner was appointed as a part time Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in the above school by virtue of a letter of appointment dated February 10, 1975. He was given permanent status by virtue of the communicat...
B. F. M. Industries Ltd. Vs. Kolkata Port Trust and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The petitioner was allotted a land measuring 6479.331 sq. mt. by the Port Trust on lease. A portion of the said land has been acquired by the State for public purpose (more or less 1464.900 sq. mt.). The petitioner is now in occupation of an area measuring 6479.331 sq. mt.. This fact appears from the letter of the Port Trust being Annexure `R1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, I direct the Port Trust to demarcate the area in occupation of the petitioner in order to facilitate the raising of a boundary wall to encircle the portion of the land presently under its occupation. Such demarcation shall be conducted by the Port Trust within three weeks from date upon notice to the petitioner as well as the Hooghly River Bridge Commissioner, being the authority for which land was acquired. The report prepared after demarcation shall be placed before this Court immediately after reopening....
Mr. Monoj Kumar Choudhury Vs. M/S. Larsen and Turbro Finance Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court :-This is a Section 9 application by the hirer. There was admittedly some default on the part of the hirer. But without taking recourse to the Court, the financer took possession of the vehicle and sold it for about Rs.6,50,000/-. The petitioner hirer filed this application after sale of such vehicle and after its possession was transferred to the buyer. I directed notice to the buyer. Both parties served notice on the buyer but he is not appearing. The financer has relied upon some Supreme Court decisions to support its contention that they had such right to possess the vehicle and sell it without the intervention of the Court. Whether the taking of possession and sale were rightful or wrongful has to be decided in arbitration because the arbitration has already started. I direct the arbitral proceedings to be concluded within three months from date. But the fact is that the petitioner hirer was in possession of the vehicle before it was taken possession of by the financer....
Punjab National Bank and ors. Vs. Subhasini Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : At the very outset, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, places before us a letter alleged to have been written by one Smt. Shampa Bose, one of the daughters of the original respondent, complaining to the bank that she never applied before this Court for being substituted as one of the heirs and legal representatives of her deceased father who was the writ petitioner/respondent. It may not be out of place to mention here that by order dated 7th July, 2010 an application for substitution filed by all the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased respondent has already been allowed. Be that as it may, since Smt. Bose has not come up before us complaining that she did not subscribe her signature on the application, we for the time being pass no order as the admitted fact is that Smt. Shampa Bose is one of the daughters of the original writ petitioner. The matter is heard in part. Let the matter appear on 16th September, 2010. Urgent Ph...
Sri Ram Shankar Dobe Vs. the Manager,r.B.i
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called on. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the petitioner submitted a communication dated November 17, 2008 to the respondent Bank informing that he is no longer interested in proceeding further in the matter. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner is present in Court. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not present. In view of the above, this writ application stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Let the communication of the petitioner, dated November 17, 2008, addressed to the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata, be kept on record. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »