Kolkata Court April 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.
Sri Suhas BhattacharyyA. Vs. Official Liquidator.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This is an application by one Ex-Director of the Company [In Liquidation]. According to the applicant, he was Director from 20th February, 1997 till 3rd November, 1998. According to the Official Liquidator, he was Director since incorporation of the Company and continued to be such till its liquidation, as no Form-32 showing his ceasing to be Director is on record. 2. Be that as it may, the Company now in liquidation was incorporated on 18th December, 1996. It was wound up on 25th April, 2005 by an order of this Court. It is also an admitted position that this Company in the late 1990s took loan from the West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., of a substantial sum of money. West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. is a Government Company fully owned by the Government of West Bengal. It is the case of the applicant that on such consideration he was nominated as a nominee Director. 3. Mrs. Sikdar for the Official Liquidator, however, argues that there is no difference betwee...
Sailesh SahA. Vs. Gouri Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.7 and is directed against the order dated May 17, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), First Court, Krishnagar in Title Suit No.69 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendant for repair of the tin shed with bamboo posts. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.69 of 2008 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also for partition. In that suit, the defendants are contesting. An order of status quo with regard to the suit property has been passed by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the defendant no.7 filed an application for permission to repair the godown in his purchased portion of the land. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties an...
Dipak Kr. Addy. Vs. Amrit Kumar Addy and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the opposite party no.1 of the misc. case bearing Misc. Case No.1551 of 2005 pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Tenth Bench, Calcutta. 2. The petitioner of that misc. case / opposite party herein instituted an application under Section 73 read with Section 74 of the Indian Trusts Act before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta for appointment of himself as trustee of the trust referred to in the said misc. case. 3. In that misc. case, the petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said misc. case. At the stage of recording evidence, that is, at trial stage, the petitioner of the misc. case prayed for amendment of the plaint and that application for amendment was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 4. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the ma...
Rashmoy Das. Vs. Rajashree Enclave Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint and for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The case of the petitioner-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that C. S. 144 of 2008 has been filed for a declaration for cancellation of the Deed of Conveyance dated 28th May, 2008 and for perpetual injunction from taking any steps in respect of such deed, as the Deed of Conveyance executed in 2008 is in respect of premises no.P-82, Lake Road, Calcutta which is admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. As the suit is for land this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the same and leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked and the plaint be returned to the appropriate Court. Reliance is placed on (2003) WBLR (Cal) 42 para 15; AIR 1981 Cal 307 and the unreported judgement in C. S 275 of 2007 (M/s. Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. Vs.- M/s. Niranjan Hi-tech Ltd. & Ors.). 2. From the...
Sri Prabir Guha and ors. Vs. Sri Uttam Chand Surana and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2008, passed in appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 443 of 2006, by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore. An appeal was instituted before the said learned Judge from an order of a learned Munsif refusing an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from claiming exclusive rights over a passage alongside a building. The learned Additional District Judge granted the order of injunction, against which the petitioner has come up before this court in this Revisional Application. BASIC FACTS:2.There is a substantially large property abutting on Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata. There is a four storied building with a frontage on that road. It has some land appertaining to it on the back and to its west. The building and the land measure about 3 cottahs 5 chittaks and 30 sq. feet. The premise is numbered as 208/1 Rash Behari Avenue. It is owne...
Namokar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. On 29th respectively all these five matters appeared in the list and when the Court was about to pass judgment and order on the question of grant of interim relief Mr. A.K. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing in M.A.T. 311 of 2011 (The Baranagore Jute Factory Plc vs.- Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd.) and M.A.T. 312 of 2011 (The Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. vs.- Baranagore Jute Factory Plc.) submitted on 29th March, 2011 that in the appeal his client does not want any interim order should be passed however he prayed the appeal should be heard out expeditiously as no factual question is involved, only question of law is required to be decided. Even the hearing of the appeal can be taken and the same can be disposed of on the basis of the papers placed before Court since all respondents had appeared in this matter. According to him the appeal itself should be heard right from tomorrow or soon thereafter. 2. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A.T. 328 of 2011 (Namo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›