Kolkata Court April 2012 Judgments
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Raju Yadav and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.283 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus RAJ.YADAV & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :17. h April, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Sutapa Sanyal Adv.The Court :- The petitioner financed Rs.16,00,000/- to the respondent no.1 for purchase of the assets specified in paragraph 2 of the petition. The amount advanced along with interest was repayable in 45 equal monthly instalments of Rs.44,400/- per month commencing from 01.10.2010. An agreement dated 5.8.2010 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents in terms whereof the petitioner has the right to take possession of the assets in default of compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement including in payment of any instalment, sell the same, and realize the proceeds thereof towards pro tanto satisfaction of its dues. The agreement also contains a clause for resolution of disputes by arbitration. The respondent no.1 paid 15 instalments an...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dibyendu Lall Seal Vs. Sri Ashis Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
TA No.48 of 2012 GA No.________of 2012 APOT No.208 of 2012 APO No.__________of 2012 GA No.401 of 2012 ATA No.10 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.DIBYENDU LALL SEAL Versus Sr.ASHIS SEAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble The CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Amar Nath Das, Adv.Mr.Sankar Narayan Saha, Adv..For the appellant. Mr.Tapas Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Sadip Kr. De, Adv..For the respondent no.1. Mr.Amitava Raha, Adv..For the respondent no.3. Mr.Jibon Ratan Chatteree, Sr.Adv.Mr.Kaushik Dey, Adv..for the respondent nos.4 to 10 Mr.Ranjan Kr. Roy, Adv.Mr.A.K. Dutt, Adv.Mr.R.Roy, Adv..for the heir of Kanailall Seal The Court : This application for stay was mentioned out of turn upon notice and in couRs.of hearing all the parties concerned in the matter have been heard. While hearing the application we propose to dispose of the appeal itself with consent of the parties treating the sa...
Tag this Judgment!And ors Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.813 of 2012 WP No.1129 of 1998 The Ganges Manufacturing Company Limited & Ors Versus Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction & ORS.BEFORE : The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA __________________________________________________________________ Date: April 16, 2012 __________________________________________________________________ Mr.L.K. Gupta, Sr.Adv.with Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv..for the petitioners Ms.Debjani Mitra, Adv..for the respondent no.4 The petitioner-company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter the BIFR).The Industrial Investment Bank of India (hereafter the IIBI) was appointed as operating agency. A scheme framed in terms of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was submitted before the BIFR. In its order dated 21st January, 1998, the BIFR recorded that the sanctioned scheme had not progress...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET CP No.104 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: MOW CHONG TANNERY (P) LTD.-ANDIN THE MATTER OF: UTPAL ADHIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.K.Thakkar, Adv.Mr.R.Sarkar, Adv.for the petitioning-creditor The Court : None appears on behalf of the company even at the second call. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The claim of the petitioning-creditor is on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The statutory notice of December 15, 2009 demanded payment of a sum of Rs.31,20,128/- and interest thereon. Despite due receipt of such statutory notice, the company did not respond thereto. The petitioner relies on primary documents in support of the principal claim. Since the company is not represented and no affidavit has been filed, it is evident that the company has no defence to the claim. In any event, upon the company not having responded to the statutory notice, there is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Biren Kr. Mukhopadhyay Vs. the Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
CP No.642 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: ANCIENT TRADERS PVT.LTD.AND BIREN KR. MUKHOPADHYAY VERSUS THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : This is a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 by an erstwhile director of a company. The companys name has been struck off on account of the statutory records and documents not being filed with the Registrar of Companies. A statement has filed on behalf of the Registrar showing that a total amount of Rs.70,000/- would be payable by the company as late filing fees if the documents were to be filed today. Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the documents could not be filed in time. The name of the company will be restored and the company given access to the portal upon the applicant paying a total amount of Rs.1 lakh inclusive of penalty, f...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Susil Kumar Routray and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.278 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus SUSIL KUMAR ROUTRAY & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Priyankar Saha, Adv.The petitioner financed purchase of the asset specified in paragraph 2 of the petition. An agreement was executed on 1st October, 2010. It is stated that the agreement was executed in Kolkata and contains a jurisdiction clause whereby the parties agreed that Courts in Calcutta alone would have jurisdiction in respect of the said agreement. The petitioner made defaults in payment whereupon the arbitration clause was invoked. The learned Arbitrator has made an award of Rs.11,82,509/- in favour of the petitioner. The award has, however, not become executable as yet. The asset in question is charged to the petitioner. Further use of the asset will lead to its deterioration. If the asset deteriorates, the award will, for all pra...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Saroj Kanta Sahoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.270 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus SAROJ KANTA SAHOO & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.P.Saha, Adv.The Court :- The petitioner financed Rs.12,47,000/to the respondent no.1 for purchase of the assets specified in paragraph 2 of the petition. The amount advanced along with interest was Rs.37,300/- repayable per month in and 47 the equal fiRs.monthly instalment instalments of of Rs.15,624/- commencing from 1st February, 2011. An agreement dated 6th January, 2011 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents in terms whereof the petitioner has the right to take possession of the assets in default of compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement including default in payment of any instalment. The agreement also contains a clause for resolution of disputes by arbitration. The respondent no.1 paid 10 instalments and part of 11th instalment a...
Tag this Judgment!Faisal Parvez and ors. Vs. Bahar Begum and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
GA No.172 of 2012 Suit No.2302 of 1948 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Faisal Parvez & ORS.Versus Bahar Begum & Anr. Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:16. h April 2012 Appearance: Ms.Chandrika Joshi, Advocate Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Advocate for plaintiff No.1A Mr.Sumitra Mitra, Advocate for plaintiff No.2A, 2F & 2G Ms.Iti Dutta, Advocate Ms.Priti Kumari, Advocate for the substituted plaintiff Ms.Ranjana Guha, Advocate Mr.Rivu Dutta, Advocate for defendant No.1A This application has more than one objective. The fiRs.is to record the death of plaintiff No.1C and his wife Smt. Dipali Sil and for substitution. There is no opposition to this prayer. Hence I pass an order in terms of prayers (b).(c) and (f) of the Notice of Motion. The second objective is to permit the plaintiff No.1A to buy 10/306 part of premises No.69, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata representing the share of Subal Kumar Sil at a consideration of Rs.2.80 lakhs to be p...
Tag this Judgment!Edcons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abc Products Limited (In Liqn.)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EC NO.188 OF 200.TS 3.of 1987 EDCONS EXPORTS PVT.LTD.Versus ABC PRODUCTS LIMITED (IN LIQN.) CA No.201 of 2006 CP No.148 of 2001 T 22.of 2007 TMT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR. CA No.373 of 2006 CP No.148 of 2001 EDCONS EXPORTS (P) LTD.Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date :16. h April, 2012. Mr.H.K.Mitra, Sr.Advocate Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Ms.S.Chatterjee (nee Ghosh) Mr.M.K.Seal, Advocate. .for Edcons Exports PVT.LTD.Mr.P.K.Das, Sr.Advocate. Mr.K.P.Majumder, Advocate. for TMT Engineering Industries. Mr.M.C.Ghosh, Advocate. Ms.M.Sen, Advocate. .for official liquidator. The Court :- All the three applications have been taken up for hearing together. Over the couRs.of hearing Mr.Das appearing for TMT that has filed CA 20.of 2006 seeking an order directing the official liquidator to release the goods and machinery possession whereof has b...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Upendra Dash and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.198 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus UPENDRA DASH & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :16. h April, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Sutapa Sanyal, Advocate The Court :- The petitioner financed Rs.28,48,000/- to the respondent no.1 for purchase of the assets specified in Annexure B of the petition. The amount advanced along with interest was repayable in 34 equal monthly instalments of Rs.95,000/- per month and the last instalment of Rs.88,347/commencing on and from 10th May, 2011 and ending on 9th October 2013. An agreement dated 17th November, 2010 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents in terms whereof the petitioner default has of agreement the right compliance including to with default take the in possession terms payment and of of the assets in conditions any of the instalment. The agreement also contains a clause for resolution of disputes by arbitration. thereafter The respondent commi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »