Kolkata Court August 2013 Judgments
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
1 ORDER SHEET ACO No.150 of 2013 APOT No.212 of 2013 CP No.91 of 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KRISHNA CHANDRA DUTTA (SPICE) PVT.LTD.Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :30. h August, 2013. Appearance:Mr.Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Mr.O.P. Jhunjhunwala Ld. Advocates for Krishna Chandra Dutta. Ms.Iti Dutta, ld. Advocate for Mr.Ashim Kr. Dutta. Mr.Debasis Ghosh, ld. Advocate for Mr.Amit Kr. Dutta. Ms.Smita Das Dey, ld. Advocate for Official Liquidator. The Court :- Despite third call being made Mr.Mainak Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant is not present. Hence, we are compelled to proceed with the application. This application has come up for modification and/or clarification of our order dated May 6, 2013 whereby we reduced the amount of deposit from Rs.5 crore to Rs.4 crore as fixed by the learned Single Judge as...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Hiralal Das and ors. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Oth ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
WP No.668 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Sr.HIRALAL DAS & ORS.-Vs.THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERs.Present : The Honble Justice JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA August 30, 2013. Appearance : Mr.Om Narayan Rai, Advocate. Mr.Vinay Kumar Purohit, Advocate. Ms.Aishwarya Jayshree, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Alok Kumar Ghose, Advocate. Mr.Arijit De, Advocate. MRS.Suvasree Ghose, Advocate. for the KMC Mr.Barin Banerjee, Advocate. Mr.Swapan Debnath, Advocate. . For the respdt. no.4. THE COURT : An order of demolition was passed by the Special Officer (Building).Kolkata Municipal Corporation, on 13th April, 2007 in Demolition Case No.6-D/2006-07 Borough-IV in respect of Premises No.19/1, Ramtanu Bose Lane, Kolkata. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Building) was challenged by the private respondent no.4 who was the person responsible for such unauthorised construction befor...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramesh Kumar Hansaria Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE W.P. No.1029 of 2012 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Hansaria Versus Union of India & ors. Before : The Honble Justice Dipankar Datta Date : August 30, 2013 Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Advocate Mr. Sambhu Nath Bera, Advocate Mr. N. Dasgupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidhartha Banerjee, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 Mr. Kamlesh Jha, Advocate Mr. Suryasarathi Basu, Advocate for the Secretary of the Welfare Association1) The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of a flat bearing not K/2 (hereafter the said flat) on the first floor of a building named Ananda Nivas. (hereafter the said building) measuring super built up area of 403 sq. ft. at premises not DE/3, D.B. Nagar, Baguihati, Kolkata 059. According to him, he purchased the said flat for valuable consideration under a Deed of Conveyance dated 16.02.2010 (hereafter the said deed), executed by Sri Nabunkur Roy Chowdhury, Smt. Subha Roy Chowdh...
Tag this Judgment!Kirti Narayan Vajpeyi Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporationand ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
ORDER SHEET WP No.689 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KIRTI NARAYAN VAJPEYI Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA Date :30. h August, 2013. Appearance : Mr.Sanjoy Bose, Advocate For the petitioner. Mr.Somnath Saha, Advocate. Mr.Amitava Sarkar, Advocate. for the added-respdt. no.7 Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee, Advocate. Mr.Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate. for the KMC Ms.Sipra Majumdar, Advocate. Ms.Susmita Biswas Chowdhury, Advocate. for the State-Respdt.no.5 The Court : This writ petition has been filed by making a complaint about some unauthorised construction alleged to have been made by the private respondent no.6, namely, Smt. Ratna Devi Bagaria Carity Trust, at Premises Nos.5 and 9, Mallick Street, Kolkata-700 007, Ward No.42. Mr.respondent Saha, no.7, learned submits Advocate that his appearing client, for in the fact, addedis in possession of the Premises Nos.5 and 9, Mallick Str...
Tag this Judgment!integrated Syndication Services Limited Vs. Shri Hanuman Foiundary Eng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
CS 21.of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE INTEGRATED SYNDICATION SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS SHRI HANUMAN FOIUNDARY ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN. DATE :30. H AUGUST,2013. For the plaintiff : Mr.Dhruba Ghosh,Advocate Mr.Sarathi Dasgupta,Advocate For the proforma defendant Nos.2,3 & 5 : Ms.Sonia Sharma,Advocate Mr.Soumabho Ghose,Advocate For the proforma defendant No.4 : Mr.Maymesh Buchasia,Advocate The Court :- Pursuant to the earlier direction, the Registrar, High Court, Original Side filed a report on 27th August,2013. It appears that the defendant No.1 is presently represented by M/s.S.Kakrania & Co.who had entered appearance on 20th September,2010 after obtaining no objection from Dube & Co.Mr.Suren Dubey today on behalf of Dube & Co.also indicated that change was obtained by M/s.S.Kakrania & Co.from the said solicitor firm in September,2010. Mr.Maymesh Buchasia appears and submits that he has received instruction to appear in the su...
Tag this Judgment!Banwarilal Agarwal and anr. Vs. Basudeo Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
ORDER SHEET GA No.2561 of 2013 CS No.308 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BANWARILAL AGARWAL & ANR. Versus BASUDEO AGARWALLA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :30. h August, 2013. Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Mr.A.Roy, Mr.S.Basu, Adversus for the petitioners The Court : In a suit seeking cancellation of a Memorandum of Understanding this application has been filed for interim relief. The case of the petitioner is that Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between him and the respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 8 in respect of respondent No.7. By such Memorandum of Understanding the shareholding of respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 8 in respect of respondent No.7 was to be transferred in favour of the petitioneRs.On the basis of such Memorandum of Understanding the petitioners have liquidated the dues of the bank on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5, 8 and 7 and parted with a sum of approximately Rs.8 crore but in spite thereof...
Tag this Judgment!Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
ORDER SHEET C.A.No.389 of 2013 C.P.No.501 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction IN THE MATTER OF : APARESH BHATTACHARYYA AND P.K.BNROTHERS PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date :30. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Debmalya Ghosh,Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.Ghosh, Advocate for company. The Court : This is an application at the instance of the petitioning creditor for modification and/or rectification of an order dated 28th June, 2013. It is pointed out that the winding up petition being C.P.No.501 of 2004 had already been admitted on 15th March, 2013 for a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum beginning from October 1, 2001 till realization. The said order was carried in an appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed the company to deposit the said sum of Rs.1,92,000/- with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. The Division Bench relegated the matter to the Company Court for its reconsid...
Tag this Judgment!In Case of Mahendra Papatial Shah – Vs. Altred Herbert (India) Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
CA No.377 of 2013 with CA No.504 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION In the matter of: Ambaji Marbles And Granite PVT.LTD.& Anr. Before: The Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon Appearance: MRS.Manju Bhuteria, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Judgment on:30. 08.2013 Harish Tandon, J.At the stage of an application under Section 391 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, a point evolved whether the procedure provided for reduction of the share capital in the scheme/arrangement should be followed or be deferred to be followed when an application for sanction of the scheme is filed after convening the meeting of the shareholdeRs.The Transferor Company was incorporated on 2nd July, 1992 as a Company limited by shares with a primary object to carry on the Trade of Marbles and Investments. A scheme of arrangement was proposed to disassociate the Investment and Rental Division of the Transferor Company to the Transferee Company with the resultant effect of reduci...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Vs. Aditya Global Infra Venture (P) Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
AP No.817 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT LTD Versus ADITYA GLOBAL INFRA VENTURE (P) LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :30. h August, 2013. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The respondents are represented and the further representations of the respondents that immediate payment would be made cannot be given credence to in view of the many failed promises. The Receiver appointed in the matter should immediately take possession of the assets covered by the agreement and remove them to any place to be provided by the petitioner. The Receiver will be paid a further remuneration of 1200 GM if the Receiver is required to undertake any travel in terms of this order. The Receiver will go only after the petitioner has been able to ascertain the whereabouts of the assets or any of them. If the Receiver cannot take possession of any of the assets within a period of four weeks from date, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
ORDER SHEET GA NO.2522 OF 201.CS NO.96 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UMA SHANKAR BEHANI & ANR. Versus BANK OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :29. h August, 2013. MR.AJAY KISHNA CHATTERJEE, SR.ADVOCATE MR.AMIT CHATTERJEE, MS.SUPARNA MUKHERJEE, MR.ANJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFFS/ PETITIONERS MR.DIPANKAR DAS, ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS The Court : In a suit for eviction this application has been filed for interim reliefs. The case of the petitioners is that initially the said premises was let out to the respondents to carry out its banking activities. It now appears that the banking activities of the respondents have been shifted to a premises next to the petitioners premise and the said premises is now being utilised as a godown and canteen. Unused furniture so also empty water cans are being stored at the said premises and an ATM has also been created in a portion of the said premi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »