Kolkata Court June 2012 Judgments
Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. Aum Mines and Minerals
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.438 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus AUM MINES & MINERALS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :25. h June, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sataroop Banerjee, Adv.The Court :- The petitioner financed purchased by the respondent no.1 of the asset specified in the petition. The respondent defaulted in payment of instalments. As a result of which, the agreement was terminated and the entire amount financed was recalled. An application being AP No.895 of 2011 was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the `1996 Act. An order of injunction was passed restraining the respondents from transferring, selling and/or alienating the asset in question. A Receiver was also appointed and liberty was given to the Receiver to appoint an agent to trace out the asset. By an order dated 10th May, 2012 the application was disposed of by discharging the Receiver and con...
Tag this Judgment!Niknish Retail Pvt. Ltd and anr. Vs. Union Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Dipankar Datta G.A. 1381 of 2012 in W.P. 4 of 2010 Nik-Nish Retail Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Versus Union Bank & Ors. with G.A. 1380 of 2012 in W.P. 6 of 2010 M/s. Bansilal Credit Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union Bank & Ors. with G.A. 1378 of 2012 in W.P. 3 of 2010 M/s. Akhil Orchards Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union Bank & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashish Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Joy Saha, Advocate Mr. R.C. Prusti, Advocate Heard on Judgment on 1. : June 14 & 18, 2012 : June 25, 2012 Issues of fact and law in these three writ petitions and connected applications being common, they were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The first petitioner in W.P. 4 of 2010 (hereafter the borrower) obtained credit facilities sanctioned by the respondent no.1/bank (hereafter the bank). Properties of the respondent n...
Tag this Judgment!..….Plaintiffs Vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
G.A.No.1678 of 2011 G.A.No.2252 of 2006 G.A.No.2205 of 2011 C.S.No.373 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SHAW WALLACE & COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER ...Plaintiffs Vs KISHORE RAJARAM CHHABRIA & ORS..Defendants For Petitioners : Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.Banerjee, Mr.J.Munim, Mr.T.Aich, Advocates For Defendants : Mr.P.Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr.A.K.Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Mr.S.Mitra, Senior Advocate Mr.M.Bhattacharyya, Advocate Heard on :02. 05.2012, 04.05.2012 & 11.06.2012 Judgment on :25. h June, 2012 I.P.MUKERJI, J. DEVELOPMENTS: Both the plaintiffs stand dissolved by operation of law. The fiRs.plaintiff (SWC) was dissolved on 7th September, 2009 by an order of this Court. It was made in connection with a scheme application under the Companies Act, 1956. The second plaintiff (SWDL) stood similarly dissolved in September 2006 by orders of the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts. Another com...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabari Manoharlal Co. Ltd. (In Liqn.) Vs. Gita Devi Agarwal and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET ACO NO.30 OF 201.APO NO.209 OF 200.CP NO.324 OF 195.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : GULABARI MANOHARLAL Co.LTD.(IN LIQN.) Versus GITA DEVI AGARWAL & ORS.-versus KRISHNA MURARI BAKREWALA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :25. h June, 2012. Mr.R.K.Jaiswal, Adv., for the appellant. The Court : Despite repeated call, the Joint Special Officers are not present. The company was wound up by the learned Company Judge. The prayer for stay was refused. Hence, the appeal filed by some of the contributories. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal vide order dated 20th December, 2005. The order is quoted below: We have, at this stage, found out that the parties are agreeable with regard to the stay of the winding-up petition. We also found out from the report of the Official Liquidator that there is no claim lying against the Company earlier passed an (In Liquidati...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Nirbhay Narayan Lal and anr.Responde
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET A.P.No.442 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.(SEFPL) Versus NIRBHAY NARAYAN LAL & ANR. Petitioner Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :25. h June, 2012. Mr.Sataroop Banerjee, Adv.for the petitioner The petitioner financed purchase by the respondent no.1 of the asset specified in the application. An agreement in writing was executed, allegedly within the jurisdiction of this Court, in terms whereof the amount financed was to be paid in monthly instalments. The said agreement, inter alia, contains an arbitration clause and also a jurisdiction clause whereby the parties agreed that Courts in Kolkata alone would have jurisdiction for the purpose of the said agreement. The respondent no.1 defaulted in payment of instalments. Disputes have arisen in connection with the said agreement, which as observed, appears to have been executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Swapan Kumar Kundu Vs. Radha Rani Tea and Estate (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET APO NO.300 OF 201.CP NO.501 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE Sr.SWAPAN KUMAR KUNDU Versus RADHA RANI TEA & ESTATE (P) LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :25. h June, 2012. Mr.Susanta Dutta, Adv., Mr.Madhusudan Sarkar, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.D.Basak, Adv., Mr.D.Roychowdhury, Adv., Mr.A.Mukherjee, Adv., for the respondent. The Court : The winding up petition was filed by the appellant on account of unpaid price of coal supplied to Radharani Tea Estate and Krishna Kali Tea Estate belonging to the respondent company. The appellant contended that a sum of Rs.9,61,460.74 was payable on account of unpaid price. On scrutiny of the invoice it would appear that those were dated 2000-01. The claim was maintained on the strength of three acknowledgments appearing at pages 102 and 103 of the paper book. Page 100 would show a delivery note whereas page 101 was a confirmatio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Anjani Enterprise Vs. Vishnu Kant Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET GA NO.1521 OF 201.WITH CS NO.190 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ANJANI ENTERPRISE Versus VISHNU KANT GUPTA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :25. h June, 2012. Mr.P.Chatterjee, Mr.S.N.Mitra, senior advocates, Mr.D.N.Sharma, Mr.S.Jainappear. The Court : Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file the supplementary affidavit. The plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement for sale with the fiRs.and second defendants. The subject matter comprised of 5230 metric tones of scraps and a Hudson locomotive described in prayer [b].of the Notice of Motion. The plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.5 crores to these defendants. They are reluctant to deliver the materials and the locomotive to the plaintiff. They are in turn trying to transfer the items to the third defendant, it is submitted. It is submitted that if notices of this application were received by these defendants, they would immediately dispose ...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Ranjeet Vasantrao Shitole and anr.Responde
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORDER SHEET A.P.No.472 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.Versus RANJEET VASANTRAO SHITOLE & ANR. Petitioner Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :25. h June, 2012. Ms.Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv.for the petitioner The petitioner financed purchase by the respondent no.1 of the asset specified in the application. An agreement in writing was executed, allegedly within the jurisdiction of this Court, in terms whereof the amount financed was to be paid in monthly instalments. The said agreement, inter alia, contains an arbitration clause and also a jurisdiction clause whereby the parties agreed that Courts in Kolkata alone would have jurisdiction for the purpose of the said agreement. The respondent no.1 defaulted in payment of instalments. Disputes have arisen in connection with the said agreement, which as observed, appears to have been executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. The claim o...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Motors Limited and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. :1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith.2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. It is further stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Minati Biswas Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Dipak Saha Ray, J. The present case arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2010 setting aside the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore in Misc. Case No. 57 of 2008 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of Misc. Case No. 350 of 2002 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The present petitioner herein/wife initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband/Opposite Party No. 2 herein for her maintenance. The said proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 350 of 2002. In the said Misc. Case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »