Kolkata Court March 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.
Srei Equipments Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ranjan Sahoo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
AP No.1010 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT.LTD.Versus SURESH RANJAN SAHOO & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h March, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Samit Talukdar, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv.The Court : A last payment of Rs.5 lakh has been made by the petitioner to the respondent pursuant to a direction of the Court. Such payment was made on March 6, 2012. It is the respondents contention that the respondents did not sign the agreement containing the arbitration clause and the respondents had obtained finance for acquiring the assets under a previous agreement. The petitioner says that upon default being committed in payment of the amounts due in respect of the previous agreement, the assets were refinanced and the second agreement was executed in such context. The petitioner says that cheques were issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner on account of payment of the future instalments...
Marsons Ltd. Vs. Everest Consultants
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
AP No.386 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MARSONS LTD.Versus EVEREST CONSULTANTS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h March, 2013 Appearance: Mr.Avirup Chatterjee, Adv.Ms.Debashrita Roy, Adv.Ms.Manju Bhuteria, Adv.The Court : This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner claims that the parties had entered into an agreement by which the respondent was to facilitate credit facilities being obtained by the petitioner for the petitioner to acquire an offshore company. The main defence of the respondent is that there is no written agreement between the parties, not is there any arbitration agreement between them. The petitioner relies on a document of May 18, 2011 which is signed on behalf of the petitioner but is not signed by the respondent. The petitioner suggests that notwithstanding the respondent not having signed the document, payments were made to the respon...
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.180 of 2012 C.S.No.299 of 2007 ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.versus EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr.Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate Ms.Suruchi Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Kuldeep Mullick, Advocate Mr.Pratik Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr.Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate Heard on : February 20, 25 and 26, 2013. Judgment on : March 8, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.BACKDROP : Uniworth Apparel Limited was a company registered in Maharashtra under the Companies Act, 1956. It had an industrial unit at Thane (Navi Mumbai) in the District of Maharashtra. The Uniworth availed credit facilities from ICICI Bank...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
CA No.111 of 2013 BIFR No.153 of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: TATA CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.(IN LIQN) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :8. h March, 2013. The Court : The three best offers for the movable assets of the company in liquidation at Koraput and Angul are of Aditya Scraps, Royal Steel India and Variety Trade Complex. The sale of lot no.1A and 1B, being the machinery and plant at the Koraput and Angul units of the company in liquidation, is confirmed in favour of Aditya Scraps, represented by its manager, Satrughna Mullick, at Rs.77 lakhs subject to the entire consideration being paid within four weeks from date. In default of the balance earnest deposit being put in with the official liquidator within a week from date, the initial earnest deposit of Rs.5 lakh made by Aditya Scraps will stand forfeited and the sale will stand confirmed in favour of Royal Steel (Prop. Fahin Beg) at Rs.76 lakh subject to the balanc...
Rajneesh Gupta Vs. M/S. Bunty Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AP No.193 of 2007 GA No.1724 of 2012 GA No.1009 of 2012 GA No.1233 of 2011 Rajneesh Gupta Versus M/S.Bunty Investment PVT.LTD.& ORS.And GA No.1307 of 2012 AP No.264 of 2004 M/S.Bunty Investment PVT.LTD.Versus Rajneesh Gupta Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:8. h March 2013 Appearance: Ms.Prova Jain, Advocate Mr.S.E. Hooda, Advocate AP No.193 of 2007 None appears in support of this application. No accommodation is sought. The petitioner, fiRs.appeared in person and thereafter through learned Counsel and sought several adjournments earlier. Hence this application is dismissed for default. GA No.1724 of 2012 For the reasons given in the order passed in AP No.193 of 2007, this application (GA No.1724 of 2012) is also dismissed for default. Interim order, if any, is vacated. GA No.1009 of 2012 This application is also dismissed for default, for the reasons given in the order passed in AP No.193 of 2007. Interim orde...
M/S.Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Bipini Marandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT 8 OF 201.GA 57.of 2013 GA 57.of 2013 WITH WP 59.of 2012 M/S.EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.Versus BIPINI MARANDI & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :8. h March, 2013. Mr.Bijoy Kumar, Advocate .for appellant Mr.Partha Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Shamik Chatterjee, Advocate for respondents The Court :- There is a delay of 94 days for the reasons mentioned in the application, accordingly the same is condoned. The order dated 18.10.2012 passed in WP 59.OF 201.has been put into question in the intra Court Appeal directing the payment of monetary compensation in terms of clause 3.6(II) with effect from the date of death of her husband. The respondents have been directed to calculate the amount as contained in the provisions from that date. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner was in employment of Coal India Limited. He died on 9.7.1996. She had app...
Ghanshyam Das Damani Vs. Kinnari Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
CS 19.of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE GHANSHYAM DAS DAMANI Versus KINNARI MULLICK & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date :8. H MARCH, 2013. For the plaintiff : Mr.Arindam Sinha,Advocate For the defendant Nos.1,2,6 & 8 : MRS.Suparna Mukherjee,Advocate The Court :- There are typographical errors in numbering the issues settled by this Court. Moreover, it appears that the issues with regard to the question of limitation has been missed out. Accordingly, the following issues are settled for trial :1) Were the letters dated 30th July,1988 and 16th April,2003 brought into existence or fabricated and manufactured by the plaintiff as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 16 of the written statement of the defendant No.1 ?.2) Whether the Agreement dated 24th December,1987, casts any obligation on the plaintiff to remove any tenants or unauthorised occupants from the suit premises ?.3) Whether the agreement dated 24th December,1987 casts any obligation on the Defendant No.1...
Vs. Mrs. Samira Khaleelire
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
APOT No.118 of 2013 G.A.No.746 of 2013 G.A.No.747 of 2013 W.P.No.517 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side BOARD OF WAKF & ANR. Appellants Versus MRS.SAMIRA KHALEELI Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :8. h March, 2013. For Appellants : Mr.Sahidullah Munshi, Sk. Md.Ghalib, Advocates For State : Mr.Sadhan Roychowdhury, Mr.Aniruddha Sen, Advocates For Respondents/Applicants: Mr.Ganesh Srivastava, Mr.Sukanta Das, Advocates The Court : A direction was issued by a Learned Single Bench to explore the possibility of appointment of Mutawalli under Section 65(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and pending disposal of the freshly instituted proceeding the Wakf Board has been restrained from dealing with the property endowed under the Wakfnama in any manner whatsoever. Possibility has been ordered to be explored within two months from the date of communication of the order. The earlier mutwalli had ...
Emami Biotech Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APOT 11 OF 201.GA 69.of 2013 WITH WP 98.of 2011 EMAMI BIOTECH LTD.AND ANR. Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :8. h March, 2013. Mr.S.Pal, Sr.Advocate Mr.U.Majumder, Advocate Ms.Vineeta Meharia, Advocate Mr.S.Majumder, Advocate ..for appellant/petitioners Mr.Abhratosh Majumder, Advocate Mr.R.De, Advocate Mr.Sailesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate ..for respondents 3 and 4 The Court :-Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pal, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Abhratosh Majumder on behalf of the respondents. The intra Court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 12.2.2013. The matter pertains to the release of subsidy. The Single Bench has not considered the interlocutory application on the ground that writ petition itself is ready for hearing and may be considered without passing an inte...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd and Another Vs. Maya Banerjee and ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
D. Bhattacharya, Ld. Member 1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the final order dated 24.05.2012 in Case No. 98/2011 as passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah, the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 thereof have preferred this appeal. 2. It is the case of the Complainant/Respondent No.1 in her petition of complaint is that her son, Tapan Banerjee secured a Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the O.P. No.1 through the Proforma O.P. No.3 (GTFS) and she was made a nominee in the said policy, being policy no. 4751220001799 /E. No. 4730861, covering a period from 23.06.2000 to 22.06.2015, of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The role of the GTFS is merely a facilitator having no authority to settle and/or to decide any claim, who has rendered its service to the Complainant satisfactorily and the Complainant has no grievance against it. Said son of the Complainant along with others proceeded from Bandel, Hooghly towards Medinipur on 08.03.2009 along NH6 by a Tata Indica Car bearing No. W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »