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. Shersingh Yadav and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
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 6th September, 2008 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is a vehicle, whose value is Rs.17,85,000/-. Due to default in payment of instalments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 15th December, 2009. The dues as on 25th August, 2010 of the respondents towards the petitioner are Rs.13,57,899/-. 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. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. I appoint Ms. Sukla Das Chandra, Bar Association, Room No. 10 Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to fil...
Smt. Lakshmi Kundu (Das) Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
In this writ petition mandamus has been prayed for against the respondents. From the cause title of the writ petition, it appears that some of the respondents have their office beyond the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. In terms of Rule 4 of the rules relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India framed by this Court, for a writ petition seeking mandamus to be entertained on the original side, all the respondents must reside/have their offices/carry on business within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. This writ petition cannot, therefore, be dealt with on the Original Side. However, since this Court has the determination to hear the subject matter of this writ petition on the Appellate Side, records of this writ petition be transmitted to the computer section, Appellate Side for registering this writ petition as an Appellate Side matter. Immediately after it is so registered, the same may be placed in the Appellate Sid...
Satyendra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Gulf Oil India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : Since as a ground of restoration some allegations have been made against the erstwhile learned Advocate-on-Record, namely, Mr. S.C. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve the copy of this application upon Mr. Pal by tomorrow (15.9.2010) informing that this application will appear after a week and on that day this Court wants to hear Mr. Pal as regards the allegations made against him. The matter is adjourned till one week. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....
Jaswantrai F. Dhruve Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court :- The affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents and the reply thereto filed by the petitioner be kept on record. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated January 11,2010 passed by the respondent company with regard to the insurance company (mediclaim) of the petitioner bearing record ID No.510900/88/09/0000000113. The petitioner availed of the opportunity of the above insurance (mediclaim) from the year 2004. He paid the yearly premium regularly till 2009 and the policy was renewed from time to time. In the year 2010 the petitioner paid the premium by an account payee cheque dated January 1, 2010. It was dishonored. By the impugned order the petitioner was informed that the policy in question stood cancelled due to non payment of premium within time. The petitioner was out of station. After returning back to Calcutta at the end of January 2010 he got impugned letter. He requested the authority to renew the policy in question bu...
Amrita Bangur Vs. the Chief Post Master General and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
I have heard Mr. Mal, learned Advocate in support of the petition. Mr. Farook M. Razack, Learned Additional Solicitor General for the Post Office is in the midst of his argument. Upon hearing, this Court is of the considered view that the audit reports of the Post Office for the relevant period during which the Public Provident Fund Account of the petitioner was closed and transferred to the bank would be decisive. The same have not been produced before this Court despite earlier direction. Mr. Razack prays for time till 24th September, 2010 to produce the same. This Court is inclined to grant the prayer of the Mr. Razack for a just and proper decision on this petition. The writ petition shall be listed on that date once again under the same heading....
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Krushna Chandra Mohanta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
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 6th August, 2009 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, whose value is Rs.28,74,034/-. Due to default in payment of instalments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 22nd February, 2010. The dues as on 6th August, 2010 of the respondents towards the petitioner are Rs.25,37,656/-. 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. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. I appoint Ms. Manju Sinha, 7, Old Post Office Street, Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file the rep...
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court : None appeared for the respondents when an order was passed on 18th February, 2010, directing the Receiver to take possession. None appears for the respondents even today. Receiver has taken possession and filed her report. Arbitration has already commenced, it is submitted. As the respondents are not appearing, I direct the Receiver to sell the vehicle at the best price available upon giving one more notice to them. The sale proceeds should first be brought into the account of the Receiver. After deducting the expenses of sale and her further remuneration assessed at 700 GMs, the Receiver will hand over the balance sale proceeds to the petitioner. The petitioner will hold such sum to the credit of the arbitration in an interest bearing account. Such exercise will be completed within a period of three months from date. The Receiver will file a report and accounts in the Registry and thereupon stand discharged. This application is accordingly disposed of. Receiver and all par...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Raj Laxmi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
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 5th November, 2008 between the parties. The subject matter of the agreement is an equipment, whose value is Rs.22,66,100/-. Due to default in payment of installments by the respondents, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 16th April, 2010. The dues as on 10th August, 2010 of the respondents towards the petitioner are Rs.12,08,005/-. 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. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayers [a] and [b] of the petition. I appoint Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Bar Association, Room No.17 Advocate as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file...
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in the Vess ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
THE COURT : In a suit for loss and damages suffered this application has been filed for interim reliefs. The case of the petitioner is that under a sales contract dated 19th July, 2010 the petitioner was to ship iron ore fines from the port of Haldia or Gangavaram to China. The last date of shipment was 10th September, 2010. 18470 MT of the said goods was loaded at Haldia on 29th August, 2010 and a Mates Receipt issued. The vessel sailed for Gangavaram where the balance 21000 MT of the said goods was to be loaded. It is at the port of Gangavaram that the Master refused to allow loading of the balance quantity of the said goods on the plea that the goods loaded at Haldia had an increased moisture content. Inspection was held and it was found that the hatch cover of the vessel could not be fully closed by mechanical means and that a gap of approximately 25 cm. was found. This was the reason for the increase of moisture content as rain water had entered through the gap of the hatch cover....
Angur Bala Dawn and anr. Vs. Tarak Nath Nag.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2010
The Court: The defense both in the judgment-debtors application for setting aside the decree and in the opposition to the decree-holders application for amendment of the decree appears to be without basis. The judgment-debtor, like the proverbial person who cites patriotism as his last excuse, claims that the decree holders have perpetrated fraud on Court and that as a result thereof the decree is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The fraud that the judgment-debtor claims is on account of the plaintiffs in the suit not bringing a fact to the notice of the ourt that prior to the application under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court being filed, the subject immovable property had already been transferred. The suit was instituted on June 15, 2005. It is an admitted position that the suit property was conveyed on June 22, 2005 by the decree-holders to the persons who are now proposed to be brought in as substituted plaintiffs and decree-holders. The applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »