Kolkata Court December 2013 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.
Kalpana Shah Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
GA No.1592 of 2012 CS No.120 of 2012 with GA No.1484 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Kalpana Shah Versus Corporation Bank Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 5th December 2013 Appearance: Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Rajeev Kumar Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.V.B. Rao, Advocate Ms.Aparajita Rao, Advocate for the defendant/respondent The Court: This is a Chapter XIIIA application in aid of the suit. It is beyond dispute that the defendant-bank was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff, paying rent much over Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence the defendant did not enjoy the protection of the Rent Act. By a notice dated 22nd December 2011, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to vacate the premises which is an area of 3000 sq.ft. on the second floor of Block No.2/1, 2/2, 2/4, 2/5 of premises No.86, B.R.B.Basu R...
G.S. Fertilizers Private Limited……. Appellant Vs. Durgapur Steels ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:- The Honble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And The Honble Justice Sahidullah Munshi. A.P.O.No.318 of 2013 C.A.No.20 of 2013 CP No.660 of 2011 G.S.Fertilizers Private Limited. Appellant Versus Durgapur Steels Limited & another Respondents For the appellant: Mr.Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Mr.Murali Mohan Ray. Heard on : November 27, 2013. Judgment on : December 05, 2013. Sahidullah Munshi, J.:- The present appeal arises out of an Order dated 26th July, 2013, passed by the Honble Single Judge in C.P.No.660 of 2011. In the said C.P.No.660 of 2011 filed by Durgapur Steels Limited being the company in liquidation, one Gopal Kumar Sanei affirmed an affidavit on 12th March, 2013, in his capacity as one of the Directors of G.S.Fertilizers Private Limited, a supporting creditor. In the said affidavit it was contended by the supporting creditor that at the request of the company in liquidation G.S.Fertilizers Priva...
Mukesh Kumar Goel and ors. Vs. Idbi Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
WP No.1185 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MUKESH KUMAR GOEL & ORS.Versus IDBI BANK LIMITED & ORS.ppearance Mr.Saptangsu Basu, Sr.Adv.Mr.P.Pal, Adv.Petitioners Mr.Somdutta Bose, Adv.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.A.K.Mistry, Adv.Respondent No.3 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 5th December, 2013. The Court : The petitioners seek to challenge the measures taken by IDBI Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on two principal grounds : that the valuation of the property has been wrongfully depressed by the bank in the sale notice; and, that the mutwali of a wakf estate has filed a suit against the petitioners claiming that the relevant land is part of a wakf estate and that the bank cannot proceed against the property in question during the pendency of the suit. Neither ground urged on behalf of the petitioners can excite the Court...
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Zylog Systems Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
AP No.982 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus M/S.ZYLOG SYSTEMS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 5th December, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.Mr.K.R. Thakkar, Adv.The Court : It is evident that the respondent is neither willing to make payment of the substantial amount due nor, possibly, able to do so. The excuse proffered is that the Government organisations which have loaned the IT hardware have not paid therefor. The respondent company should disclose the whereabouts of the IT hardware financed by the petitioner to advocate for the petitioner within a week from date. Such information will be furnished by the principal person in control of the respondent company. Upon the location of the IT hardware being disclosed, the Receiver appointed in the matter will immediately proceed to take possession of such of the assets which can be taken possession of and for which arrangements are ...
Central Bank of India Vs. Poddar Projects Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
ORDER SHEET APDT No.15 of 2013 GA No.3530 of 2013 with CS No.374 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Versus PODDAR PROJECTS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 5th December, 2013. Mr.Ranjit Kumar Jaiswal, Mr.Gautam Chakraborty for the appellant. Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Mr.Satadeep Bhattacharya, Mr Awani Kr. Roy for the respondent. The Court : The appellant was a tenant in respect of premises no.18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata under a deed of lease dated May 24, 2001 appearing at pages 43-49 of the application for stay. The lease was initially for a period of five years with two options of renewal of five years each. The lease was to commence from October 1, 1999. If we take into consideration the initial period and two extensions, it would expire on September 30, 2014. After completion of the fiRs.period the appellant applied for renewal. However, no formal lea...
Urmila Gupta and ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
ORDER SHEET E.C.521 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE URMILA GUPTA AND ORS.Versus KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 5th December, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Promit Kr Ray, Bar-at-Law. Mr.Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mullick, Adv. for the petitioners Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Adv.Mr.P.Deb, Adv. for the respondents The Court: Leave was taken from this Court on 3rd December, 2013 by Mr.Ray, learned Counsel, to move this application on an urgent basis, ex parte, today. It is, thus, appearing today as New Chamber Application. It appears from the submissions made by Mr.Ray that a substantial question is raised, which has to be tried. The question is this. There are two properties in question; one in Kestopur and the other at Beliaghata. Sale of the Beliaghata property is scheduled to take place tomorrow. The petitioners are three sisteRs.The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are their brotheRs.The respondent No.4 is their mo...
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benkiser [India] Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
1 ORDER SHEET APO No.36 of 2013 CS No.222 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Versus RECKITT BENKISER [INDIA].LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 5th December, 2013. Appearance: Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Debnath Ghosh and Ms.Anshumala Bansal,ld. Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Sayantan Bose with Mr.S.Prosad, Ld. Advocates for the respondent. The Court :- The litigation would relate to an advertisement that is offending the appellantplaintiff. Both of them being high-mighty multinationals engaged in the same trade, would quarrel with each other in various Courts of the country with the sole object as to whether the one is offending its rivals products through advertisement. The subject litigation would relate to bathing soaps having the manufactured brand by name the of Lifebuoy appellant and and the Dettol respondent respectively. Th...
Somnath Raj Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and An ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
J. Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 18.04.2012 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in DF Case No. 82/2010 , whereby Ld. Forum below considered and decided that the complaint was not maintainable as the same was a pre-mature complaint , holding along that the OP insurance company must settle the claim of the Complainant in case the required documents as called for by the OP insurance company vide their letter dated 29.03.2010 are produced. The complaint case, in brief , was as follows: The Complainant purchased a Maxi Truck in the year 2009 through bank financing and the Truck was insured with OP No.1 for the period from 26.03.2009 to midnight of 25.03.2010. The Complainant paid monthly installments to OP -2 (Bank) up to the month of January 2010. The truck ,while plying in the Burdwan-Kalna Road , met with an accident on 18.02.2010 and was damaged severely. The accident was reported to Memary Police Station . The damaged vehicle ...
Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO No.203 of 2013 With AP No.333 of 2007 ASHOKA TUBEWELL & ENGINEERING CORPORATION Versus UNION OF INDIA APO No.207 of 2013 With AP No.333 of 2007 UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S.ASHOKA TUBEWELL & ENGINEERING CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,ACJ The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 4th December, 2013. Mr.Animesh Kanti Ghosal, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Rajendra Chaturvedi for Railways. Mr.Ranjan Deb, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Debamitra Adhikary for Ashoka Tubewell & Engineering Corporation. The Court : In couRs.of hearing on the last occasion Mr.Animesh Kanti Ghosal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Railways has drawn our attention to a clause that would provide, the arbitration could only be done by the Railway Officer and if it was not possible for any reason, there would be no arbitration at all. We asked Mr.Ghosal to take instruction whether his client would be agreeable to deposit ...
Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. M/S. Aqdas Maritime Agency ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE A.P.No.790 of 2012 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusM/S.AQDAS MARITIME AGENCY PVT.LTD.A.P.No.812 of 2012 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusM/S.AQDAS MARITIME AGENCY PVT.LTD.A.P.No.816 of 2012 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED -VersusM/S.AQDAS MARITIME AGENCY PVT.LTD.Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv...for the respondents. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : December 4, 2013. The Court : Though the finance company has instituted petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent in respect of three agreements, the parties say that five agreements were executed by them in all and another agreement was executed between the finance company and Citizen Transport Company PVT.LTD.The parties have attempted to resolve their disputes pertaining to all the agreements between the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »