Kolkata Court March 2011 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.
Hi-tech Heritage Limited and ors. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. A meeting of the Shareholders of Hi-Tech Heritage Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company) shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Calcutta-700001 on the 29th day of April, 2011 at 2.00 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the Scheme of Amalgamation proposed of Baviscon Dealers Private Limited and Prachi Agencies Private Limited (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Transferor Companies) with Hi-Tech Heritage Limited. 2. A meeting of the Shareholders of Baviscon Dealers Private Limited shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Calcutta-700001 on the 29th day of April, 2011 at 2.15 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the Scheme of Amalgamation. 3. A meeting of the Shareholders of Prachi Agencies Private Limited shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Calcutta-...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Limited. Vs. Gajinder Pal Singh Vij and an ...
Court: kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Prima facie the order dated 15th March, 2011 was obtained by suppression of some material facts, while moving the application in Court. The order dated 23rd December, 2009 in AP No.553 of 2009 and order dated 4th February, 2010 in AP No.553 of 2009 were not placed before the Court. 2. The application was moved very innocuously as the first Section 9 application upon alleged default being committed by the respondents. It was submitted, as is usually done, that in spite of affidavit of service, none appeared on their behalf in Court.3. In such circumstances, the order was passed. Therefore the order dated 15th March, 2011 is stayed. This will not prevent the financier from taking out an appropriate application. 2 Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 13th April, 2011.4. List this application on 21st April, 2011. Affidavit-in-reply may be filed in the meantime. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. S M Aslam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. This is a section 9 application founded on a hire purchase agreement between the parties, containing the arbitration clause. Outstanding dues of the respondents as of date are over Rs.10,00,000/-. The subject matter is a vehicle. 2. The petitioner has already terminated the agreement. Arbitration has commenced but an award has not been passed. Affidavit of service is on record. None appears for the respondents. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayer [a] of the petition.3. I appoint Mr. Jayanta Kumar Dhar, Advocate, Bar Association Room No. 16 as Receiver at a remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. Receiver to file the report by the returnable date. I also pass an order in terms of prayer [b] of the petition. 4. The local police authority is directed to render necessary assistance to the Receiver, if so requisitioned by him. The assistanc...
Belvedere Properties Private Limited and anr. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Separate meetings of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company Nos.1 and 2 under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the purpose of considering, and, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Applicant Company Nos.1 and 2 with Madhuting Tea Private Limited (the Transferee Company) shall be convened and held at the office of their Advocates-on Record, Messrs. Khaitan & Co at `Emerald House, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata 700 001 on Friday, the 8th day of April, 2011 at the following times respectively:- 2. BPPL has only 4 (four) Equity Shareholders and LRPL has only 8 (eight) Equity Shareholders. Since the said shareholders have already considered and given their consent in writing to the Scheme, such meetings may be held at short notice. That at least 3 (three) days before the meetings to be held as aforesaid, a Notice convening the said meetings at the place and times as aforesaid together with a copy o...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Paramatma Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. 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 between the parties containing the arbitration clause. This Section 9 application has been taken out to protect the assets after passing of the award. Outstanding dues of the respondents as of date are over Rs.11,00,000/-. The subject matter is a vehicle. 2. 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. 3. Arbitrator has been appointed. An award has also been passed. The time to enforce the award has not matured as yet, it is submitted. It is apprehended by the petitioner that when such time matures the respondents would have alienated and/or encumbered the equipment. Therefore, on the above prima facie, I pass an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. 4. I appoint Mr. Gyan Prakash Sard...
Shree Balasaria Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This is a Section 9 application, moved ex parte. It is founded on an agreement for installation of a Cellular Site dated 1st September, 2001, between the parties containing an arbitration Clause. There is a forum selection clause in that agreement stipulating that the Courts in Calcutta will have exclusive jurisdiction. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that the claim in arbitration would be a monetary claim and that the defendant is within jurisdiction.2. Hence, this Court can try this application. By this agreement some space on the ground floor and on the roof of the premises described in the schedule to the petition was to be given on licence by the petitioner to the predecessor in interest of respondent 2 to be used as such site. The period of use was for nine years commencing from 1st September, 2001 and expiring on 31st August, 2010. It appears that the agreement also stipulated that upon expiry of the said term the arrangement could be extended for such further period a...
Dimension Niryaat Private Limited and ors. Vs.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. A meeting of the Shareholders of DIMENSION NIRYAAT PRIVATE LIMITED shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 2nd Floor, Room No. 34, Calcutta-700 001 on the 20th day of April, 2011 at 2.00 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the Scheme of Amalgamation proposed of ACCENTURE NIRYAAT PRIVATE LIMITED, GANGOTRI PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED and JEEVANJYOTI PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company) with DIMENSION NIRYAAT PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company). 2. A meeting of the Shareholders of ACCENTURE NIRYAAT PRIVATE LIMITED, shall be convened and held at 10, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, 2nd Floor, Room No. 34, Calcutta-700 001 on the 20th day of April, 2011 at 2.30 p.m. for the purpose of considering and if thought fit approving with or without modification, the said Scheme of Amalgamation. 3. A meeting of the Shareholders of GANGOTRI PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED shall ...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokendra Singh Rathore and anr.
Court: kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Leave is granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent subject to the question of its requirement. The award was made and published on 25th January, 2010. It is said that the equipment has been recently sighted in Lalit Pur, Near Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. If a notice of this application is given to the respondent, they would quickly remove the assets from the reach of the Court. 2. It is submitted that an execution application is not being taken out because as soon as the respondents are served notice of such application, they will take out a section 34 application to delay the execution. In the mean time they will remove the equipment. Considering the above case, I pass an order in terms of prayer [a] limited to symbolic possession only. 3. I appoint Ms. Sayanti Mukherjee, Advocate, Bar Library Club as Receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 GMs. to be paid by the petitioner. There is no prayer for injunction in the application. Nevertheless, for the ends of justice, I also 2 pass ...
Kaneez Begum. Vs. Noel Patrick.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.114 dated January 3, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.595 of 1993. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.595 of 1993 for ejectment, damages and other reliefs against the opposite party before the said Court. The opposite party entered appearance into the said suit on January 17, 1994. Thereafter, the defendant prayed for several adjournments to file a written statement. Ultimately, he did not care to file his written statement and as such, the suit was decreed ex parte against the opposite party on September 8, 1995. 3. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. but that application was dismissed. The defendant preferred a misc. appeal and he got the order of setting aside the ex parte decree from the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an ...
Pradyut Ranjan Dutta Roy and ors. Vs. Rita Menon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 17th March, 2011 has accepted the apology tendered by the author of the letter viz., Dilip Kumar Nandy. The learned Trial Judge has recorded his feelings which we appropriately quote :- It appears that on 9th March, 2011 a Division Bench has passed an order directing the alleged contemnor to personally attend this Court in respect of the letter that he had written and express his feelings. 2. It is not mentioned in the order the Division Bench relating to this Court or any other Court. Anyway we take it that the Honble Trial Judge has meant to say the Division Bench of this Court. 3. When the apology has been accepted by His Lordship we think that there is no difficulty to hear out the matter by the Honble Trial Judge. The writing of the letter in our view is not intended to mean anything else but only to get justice in accordance with law. 4. Hence Reference under the Contempt of Courts Act is accordingly dropped. Although there is no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »