Kolkata Court July 2012 Judgments
Road Builder (M) Sdn Bhd Vs. Tantia Constructions Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. However, the joint venture did not materialise. The appellant thereafter agreed to sell its plant, machinery, vehicles and all other equipments arranged for the said project to the respondent at and for a sum of Rs.2,75,73,614/-. They accordingly agreed on terms for sale and prepared a schedule containing 47 items of plant and machinery and 18 vehicles including two-wheelers and four-wheelers and an agreement was entered into by the company to the said effect. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs as first instalment. It was agreed that they would make payment of the purchase price at a monthly instalment of Rs.20 lacs except the last instalment. The instalments were payable on the 15th day of each English calendar month and default would attract interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The company paid diverse sums from time to time, aggregating to Rs.48...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Co-operative Sugar Federation Ltd. Vs. M/S. H.R. Traders an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. This appeal would relate to a decretal claim that was passed by Madras High Court on January 3, 1992. The appellant obtained the ex parte decree from the Madras High Court, as the respondent did not contest the same. In 1998 the appellant obtained certified copy of the decree and applied for transmission of the same to this Court for execution, as the respondents were based at Calcutta. Subsequently, the appellant filed a winding up petition being C.P. No. 289 of 2001 before this Court. During pendency of the winding up proceeding, the respondent filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte decree upon receipt of a notice for execution issued by this Court. The respondent made an application on September 25, 2003 for recall of the ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay of 4248 days. By an order dated September 30, 2003 appearing at page 143-144 of the Paper Book the Madras High Court stayed the operation of the decree for a...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Susama Das Mahapatra and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Other ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These four second appeals are directed against the Title Appeal No.351 of 1975, Title Appeal No.353 of 1975, Title Appeal No.352 of 1975 and Title Appeal No.362 of 1975 arising out of the Title Suit No.s, namely, Title Suit No.517 of 1967, Title Suit No.518 of 1967, Title Suit No. 520 of 1967 and Title Suit No.519 of 1967 respectively. All the four second appeals are involved identical questions of law and as such, the said four second appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The plaintiff of the respective suits filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Government of West Bengal in respect of the suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint. The State of West Bengal is contesting each suit by filing a written statement in each suit denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Issues had been framed and the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Thereafter, the learned Trial Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Roy Vs. Shyamal Kanti Bandhyopadhyay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 23, 2003 and October 28, 2003 respectively passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No.97 of 2000 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated April 25, 2000 and April 29, 2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.361 of 1991. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.361 of 1991 against the defendant/appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit premises as described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of reasonable requirement. The defendant/appellant herein contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Upon analysis of evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on contest. Being aggrieved, the defendant/tenant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.97 of 2000...
Tag this Judgment!Samsul ArfIn and Others Vs. Zamurad Sultana and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 26, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No.80 of 2007 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated February 27, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.37 of 2006. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a suit being Title Suit No.452 of 1979 for ejectment against the predecessor-ininterest of the appellants from the premises in suit as described in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, Alipore, inter alia, on the ground of default and reasonable requirement in the year 1979. The said suit was subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No.37 of 2006. The defendants contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and both the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Investment Services Vs. Ankit Securities and Finance Company Pvt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.274 of 2011 AP No.654 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BIRLA INVESTMENT SERVICES Versus ANKIT SECURITIES & FINANCE COMPANY PVT LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :26. h July, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury with Mr.Subrata Goswami, Advocates For the appellant. Mr.S.Talukdar with Mr.Suman Dutta, Advocates For the respondent. The Court :- This appeal would relate to an order of refusal to entertain an application made under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an award published by the Arbitrator as against the appellant. We heard this matter on the last occasion when Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury learned Counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for accommodation so that he could take instruction in the matter. Today when the matter is called on learned Counsel submits on instruction that the appellant is ready and willing to a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Space Matrix Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP No.600 of 2012 M/S.SPACE MATRIX PVT.LTD.Versus IDBI BANK LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date :26. h July, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dutt, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.V.Raja Rao, Advocate The Court : Because of certain pending investigations into the affairs of the petitioner-company, its unit lies closed at the instance of the Revenue Intelligence Directorate. In connection with such investigation, the bank accounts of the petitioner-company were frozen and as a result thereof, the petitioner-company ran the risk of such bank accounts being classified as Non-Performing Assets. Fortunately for it, the freezing order was lifted. It was at that stage that the petitionercompany presented WP No.523 of 2012 before this Court praying for time till 31st July, 2012 to pay the balance installments and the interest component. The writ petition was disposed of on 28th June, 2012 by...
Tag this Judgment!Development Vs. Cesc Limited and anr.R
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
ORDER SHEET WP No.496 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTUR AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Petitioner Versus CESC LIMITED AND ANR. Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBASISH KAR GUPTA Date :26. h July, 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.B.R. Bhattacharyya, Sr.Advocate Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Advocate For CESC : Mr.Jayak Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr.Subrata Mukhopadhyay, Advocate The Court : This writ application is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondent No.1 to give new electric connection by energising the Transformer lying and situated at 51/1, Radha Nath Chowdhury Road, Kolkata-700 015. It is submitted by Mr.B.R. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitionerbank that by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated January 20, 1998 the petitioner-bank purchased a portion of the Premises No.51, Radha Nath Chowdhury Road, Kolkata-700 015. According to him ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Singh Vs. M/S. Niknish Retail Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.85 of 2012 CP No.118 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AJAY SINGH Versus M/S.NIK-NISH RETAIL LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHUKLA KABIR (SINHA) Date :26. h July, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Samapti Chatterjee, Advocate For the appellant. Mr.A.Roy and Mr.S.S. Bose, Advocates For the respondent. The Court :- The appellant was an employee of the Company. He resigned on August 7, 2010 as appears from page 17 of the Paper Book. He made grievance as his past dues were not paid off by the Company. He issued a statutory notice of demand, inter-alia, asking for sum of Rs.10,75,421/-. The claim would include exgratia for Rs.1 lac per year on and from 2007. The appellant claimed that the Company paid him Rs.5 lacs as exgratia upto 2006. Hence he would be entitled to the identical amount for the subsequent yeaRs.The Company did not give reply to the statutory notice of demand. They did not pay any part ...
Tag this Judgment!Swapna Bhattacharjee Vs. Sambhunath Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
GA 166.OF 201.CS 22.OF 201.ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SWAPNA BHATTACHARJEE Versus SAMBHUNATH DUTTA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :26. h July, 2012. Mr.P.K.Nandi, Adv.appeaRs.Mr.J.Mondal, Adv.appeaRs.The Court : This is an application for passing a preliminary decree of partition and for appointment of a Commissioner of Partition. All the parties are represented except the fourth, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth defendants. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that writs of summons were served upon these parties but they have not filed their written statements. The others are represented. Furthermore, from the written statement filed on behalf of the appearing defendants, the shares as mentioned in the prayers are admitted. In the absence of any written statement filed by the other defendants, it has to be taken that they have no dispute to the admitted shares of the parties. The admitted shar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »