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.
Sarda Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Hemant Kumar Motihar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. On 16th March, 2011 I had admitted the appeal. I had directed notice of this appeal to be issued to the respondents, as at that point of time the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not praying for any interim order. An affidavit of service has been filed, which says that the respondents were served on 21st March, 2011 at 1100 hrs. None appears for them. 2. This appeal is against an order of the Company Law Board made on 7th January, 2011, refusing to entertain the application of the appellant on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so. By the application the appellant herein and petitioner before the Company Law Board had asked for an order for cancellation of the shares acquired by the respondents in the appellant/petitioner Company. The ground was that the attempted take over by them was not a valid one. 3. From a photo copy of a document being FORMAT FOR DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS OF ACQUISITION TO TARGET COMPANY AND STOCK EXCHANGES WHERE THE SHRES OF THE TARGET COMPANY AR...
The West Bengal Khadi and Village Industries Board and anr. Vs. the St ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated October 23, 2009 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and where under(SIC) the said learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition since the writ-petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction without approaching the prescribed appellate authority under the statute. 2. The learned Counsel representing the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant no.1 herein does not come within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 since the concerned employee of the appellant no.1 cannot come within the definition of the employee in terms of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned Counsel of the appellants submits that the Award passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on July 10, 2008 cannot be sustained since the employee concerned, viz., respondent no.4 herein does not come within the definition of employee under...
Wajid Ali (Dec). Vs. Shahjad Ahmed.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Leave is given to the petitioner to use a supplementary affidavit which may be filed by March 25, 2011. Affidavitin-opposition to the petition and the supplementary affidavit be filed within three weeks there from; reply thereto, if any, within a week thereafter. 2. These directions have been taken by the beneficiary under the Will without prejudice to its rights and contentions that the application is not maintainable. The beneficiary housing society insists that it is in possession of the property which has been disputed by the petitioner. 3. The beneficiary society says that negotiations are at an advanced stage with the appropriate authority for granting exemption in respect of the land in question under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. 4. There will be an order of injunction restraining the beneficiary housing society from dealing with or disposing of or alienating or otherwise creating any third party interest in respect of the property in question without previous leave of Court. ...
Mun Mun Roy. Vs. Fiona Roy.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The above suit, EOS No. 3 of 2008, was originally instituted in Sealdah Court on 26 September 2007 by two ladies, namely Sipra Roy and Mun Mun Roy. As they failed to obtain any interim order after institution of the suit, they preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Judge of Sealdah Court in the District Court of Barasat. Even the Appellate Court of Barasat did not make any interim order, only the plaintiffs were directed to serve the notice of appeal upon the sole defendant, Fiona Angeela Roy (Das). 2. After Fiona Angeela Roy (defendant in short) came to know of the institution of the suit in Sealdah Court, she approached this Court by way of an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for removal of the said suit from Sealdah Court to this Court. By an order dated 19 December 2007 a Rule was issued and eventually by virtue of order dated 16 January 2008 the suit was removed from the Sealdah Court to this Court and was renumbered as EOS No. 3 of 2008. 3. Since...
M/S. Modern Design Group. Vs. M/S. Engineering Projects (India) Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The remaining claim in the execution proceedings is on account of the interest claimed by the decree-holder. The decree holder says that since the award dated July 7, 2005 permitted the judgment-debtor to make payment of the principal sum awarded of Rs.12.5 lakh within a period of two months from the date of the award and did not refer to any interest, the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum in accordance with the mandate of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decree-holder has agreed to accept interest at a lower rate of 14 per cent per annum if the claim on account of interest is immediately settled. 2. As at December 1, 2009, the principal amount of Rs.12.5 lakh together with interest thereon from the date of the award calculated at 14 per cent per annum amounted to Rs.20,16,164.38. The parties say that in a suit where both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor herein are defendants, the plaintiff therein obtain...
Adyti Ghosh Vs. Sujata Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the defendant no.2 in Title Suit No.67 of 2007, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court at Alipore. The suit is one for eviction of the defendants on the ground of expiry of lease by efflux of time. The suit has been valued at Rs. 61,000/-, segregated in the following manner : i) for recovery of khas possession, the suit was valued at Rs. 8400/-; ii) for mesne profit, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,500/-; and iii) for damages the suit was valued at Rs. 42,100/-.2. An application was filed by the defendant no.2/petitioner under Order VII Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) for returning the plaint to the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 (hereafter the plaintiff) for its presentation to the Court of the lowest grade having jurisdiction to try the said suit. Before the learned trial Judge, contention was raised on behalf of the defendant no.2/petitioner that foundation of the plaintiffs claim on account of damages was lac...
Durshi Chand Agarwal. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as The Code) for quashing of the proceeding in C.G.R no. 2543 of 2009 arising out of Kalighat Police Station case no. 140 of 2009 dated 26.7.2009 under Sections 498 A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act is filed at the instance of Durshi Chand Agarwal and Raj Kumari Agarwal, the accused no. 2 and 3. 2) Megha Agarwal wife of Deepak Agarwal (accused no.1 in the case-inquestion)lodged one FIR with Kalighat Police Station against her husband Deepak Agarwal and the petitioners who happen to be her father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, alleging therein that her marriage with Deepak Agarwal took place on 11.7.2007 and after marriage she had been to her matrimonial house at 49, Guru Pada Haldar Road, Calcutta 700026 where she started her matrimonial life. At the time of marriage cash of Rs. 35,00000/- was given to the accused persons as Dowry....
Dibakar Kumar Sarkar Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. This writ petitioner has impugned an inaction on the part of the respondent no. 3 - 5 to release the arrear salary and also to pay the entire retiral benefits. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kamardanga Free Primary School, West Dinajpur on and from the month of September 1963. The petitioner used to put his signature on the monthly return which was submitted to the Sub-Inspector of School at the end of each month. Some discrepancy arose regarding putting the signature in the third column of the monthly return below one Sri Mahiuddin who was appointed subsequently. The salary of the writ petitioner was not paid from the months between June to November, 1979, April to December, 1980 and January to December, 1981 and from January to April, 1982. It is contended by the writ petitioner that during such period he rendered his services continuously. Subsequently the writ petitioner was recommended to undergo the primary training from 3. Mar...
M/S. Rose Valley Real Estates and Constructions Ltd. and anr.Securitie ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated January 14, 2011 are questioning an order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the Board) dated January 3, 2011 (at p.80). The whole-time member of the Board passing the order under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed the first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the company) as follows: 15. In view of the same, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 and regulation 65 of CIS Regulations, hereby direct the company: a. not to collect any money from investors or to launch any scheme; b. not to dispose of any of the properties or delineate assets of the scheme; c. not to divert any fund raised from public at large kept in bank account and/or at the custody of the company. 2. By a letter dated January 8, 2010 (at p.51) the Board informed the second petitioner (the chairman of the company) as f...
Smt. Parul Bala Mazumdar. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.135 dated February 21, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.55 of 1972 thereby rejecting an application dated February 21, 2008 under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the C.P.C. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff petitioner herein instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits alternatively for refund of purchase money. In that suit, there were 23 defendants. The plaintiff issued summons upon all of them. The defendants entered appearance in the suit. 3. Subsequently, the defendant nos.2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 did not file any written statement. They did not contest the suit. The learned Advocate appearing for those defendants intimated the Court about that position. Thereafter, that those defendants died. The plaintiff filed the said application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the C.P.C. By th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »