Kolkata Court October 2012 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.
Lakhikant Dey Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
ORDER SHEET WP NO.663 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LAKHIKANT DEY Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE Dr. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :16. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.U.S.Agarwal, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Bijoy Kumar, Advocate for respondents The Court : By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ directing the respondents to cancel and quash an order dated September 9, 2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in keeping his name on a live roster and also for a mandamus to provide the petitioner with an employment in place of his deceased father who was an employee of the respondent no.2. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1994. At the relevant time, National Coal Wages Agreement V was invoked and the law prevalent at that point of time shall govern the field. One of the conditions was that for compassionate appointment as contained in the said agreement was that the dependant of th...
Limited Vs. Saurashtra Finance and Holding Pvt.Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
AP No.301 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusSAURASHTRA FINANCE & HOLDING PVT.LTD & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.S.Mitra, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : October 16, 2012. The Court : The parties agree that at least a sum of Rs.11 lakh is due from the respondent to the petitioner on account of defaulted instalments in respect of the agreement which is the subject-matter of the petition. The matter had been adjourned on several occasions and a receiver has been directed to take possession of the assets covered by the agreement. However, the receiver has been directed to only make an inventory of the assets covered by the agreement if a certain sum is paid off by the respondent to the petitioner prior to the receiver taking possession of the relevant assets. In fact, a combined order was passed in this and ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
CP No.84 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction INTHE MATTER OF: M/S.CREATIVE LTD.And TITAN LEATHERS PVT.LTD.Appearance Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Malay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr.Supriya Ranjan Saha, Advocate Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Chayan Gupta, Advocate BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h October, 2012. The Court : The parties to the present creditors winding-up petition have agreed to the following order through Counsel representing them in Court :i. The company admits the principal claim of Rs.1.49 crore and will pay off such amount together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on such sum reckoned from December 14, 2011 (which is the date of the statutory notice) on reducing balance basis in the manner following :- a. A sum of Rs.20 lakh will be paid by November 15, 2012; b. The balance amount will be paid in nine equal or nearly equal monthly instalments beginning December 15, 2012 and payable by the fifteenth day of the e...
Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Finance and Holding P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
AP No.305 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT.LTD.-VersusSAURASHTRA FINANCE & HOLDING PVT.LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.S.Mitra, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : October 16, 2012. The Court : The parties agree that at least a sum of Rs.12.5 lakh is due from the respondent to the petitioner on account of defaulted instalments in respect of the agreement which is the subject-matter of the petition. The matter had been adjourned on several occasions and a receiver has been directed to take possession of the assets covered by the agreement. However, the receiver has been directed to only make an inventory of the assets covered by the agreement if a certain sum is paid off by the respondent to the petitioner prior to the receiver taking possession of the relevant assets. In fact, a combined order was passed in this and three ...
Mr. P. Saha, Ad Vs. …appears and Submits
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
ORDER SHEET ALP No.12 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE GOODS OF : LILABATI SEN (SINCE DECEASED) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :16. h October, 2012. Mr.P.C.Pal Chowdhury, Mr.Sakya Sen, Mr.P.Saha, Adversus appears and submits The Court : An application for probate is pending before the learned City Civil Court. It is submitted that this application is uncontested, being accompanied by consent affidavits of all the heirs who would have succeeded on intestacy. The grievance is that in spite of this situation, the learned City Civil Court has posted the application for consideration on 15th January, 2013. Hence, the case should be transferred to this Court. There can be little doubt that a large number of cases is pending before the learned Judge. A case diary is maintained in that Court according to a set procedure. Following that procedure the application can only be taken up for consideration in January 2013. Bu...
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. Ronit Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.2 of 2012 A.P.No.604 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO No.3 of 2012 A.P.No.605 of 2011 APO No.4 of 2012 A.P.No.606 of 2011 APO No.5 of 2012 AP No.617 of 2011 APO No.6 of 2012 AP No.618 of 2011 APO No.7 of 2012 AP No.619 of 2011 APO No.8 of 2012 AP 62.of 2011 APO No.9 of 2012 AP 62.of 2011 APO No.10 of 2012 AP 62.of 2011 APO No.11 of 2012 AP No.623 of 2011 APO 1.of 2012 AP 62.of 2011 APO No.13 of 2012 AP No.625 of 2011 APO No.14 of 2012 AP No.626 of 2011 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.Versus RONIT NIRMAN PVT.LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :16. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.A.Chandra and Mr.Atish Ghosh ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Sakya Sen with Mr.L.Mondal and Ms.N.Auddha, Advocates For the respondent. The Court: All 13 appeals would relate to a financial assistance appellant extended to the respondent f...
State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, Acting Chief Justice And The Honble Justice Asim Kumar Mondal 16.10.2012 WP 379.of 1994 GA 151.of 2008 GA 280.of 2009 GA 47.of 2010 GA 47.of 2010 GA 120.of 2010 State of West Bengal versus Union of India The Court :- In terms of the earlier order the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Basak produced the original records regarding vesting of the land. Record is so voluminous, it is not possible for the Court to find out the date of vesting and the mode of vesting. Therefore, we ask Mr.Basak who is appearing as junior with the learned Advocate General to hold a meeting with Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury to go through the records mindfully and to find the following information: i) The mode of vesting viz., under what provision of law the vesting has taken place ; ii) The date of vesting ; iii) Whether any notice was served upon the person interested in the plots of ...
Santanu Kumar Dey Vs. Sanat Kumar Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
GA No.2805 of 2012 AP No.374 of 2008 And GA No.2807 of 2012 AP No.615 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SANTANU KUMAR DEY Versus SANAT KUMAR DEY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h October, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv.Ms.Somoshree Saha, Adv.The Court : These two matters relate to differences between the brothers under two agreements. AP No.374 of 2008 was dismissed for default by an order of March 17, 2010. AP No.615 of 2008 was also dismissed for default by an order of March 17, 2010. It is submitted by the petitioner in both AP No.374 of 2008 and AP No.615 of 2008 that the petitioner was not aware of the order of dismissal and advocate then representing the petitioner did not inform the petitioner thereof. Though, ordinarily, such an allegation would have required service of the application on erstwhile advocate, but since the brothers have not resolved to end their disputes, the orders dated March...
M/S. Madhav Structural Engineering Limited and Another Vs. M/S. Srei I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Patherya, J. This is an application filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the Award dated 3rd May, 2005. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to a finance agreement between the parties the respondents financed purchase of equipment by the petitioner. On the ground of alleged non-payment of instalments, possession was taken of the equipments on 11th July, 2002 and agreement terminated on 30th August, 2002. Under the agreement 18 instalments were to be paid and in 2004 the respondents received full payment. Therefore the question of making any further payment as directed by the Award does not arise. One of the issues raised before the Arbitrator was with regard to seizure of the equipments before termination of agreement so also the right to claim interest by the respondents. In the counter statement filed it was specifically pleaded that huge funds were invested by the petitioners for completion of the roadwork and default in payment cannot be attributed to th...
In the Matter of - Maheshwary Ispat Limited and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Sanjib Banerjee, J. The parties are not to blame for this creditor’s winding-up petition having lingered for an unnecessary length of time and there being a more protracted hearing than is ordinarily called for in a matter of this kind. It was only an observation of the court that led to a relatively innocuous matter being blown out of proportion upon the court considering it to be significant that subsequent to the present petition being instituted the creditor applied elsewhere for an order in the nature of attachment before judgment against the company and the persons who guaranteed repayment of company’s dues to the petitioner. Further, the fact that the petitioning creditor obtained a substantial order in its favour in the subsequent proceedings also weighed with the court at the initial stage of the final hearing. The cobwebs have, hopefully, now been cleared and the matter seen in proper perspective. The petitioning creditor is a non-banking financial company which c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »