Kolkata Court March 2014 Judgments
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. Vs. W.B. Minerals Development and Trading
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
AP No.493 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RASHMI METALIKS LTD.-VersusW.B.MINERALS DEVELOPMENT & TRADING CORPORATION LTD.& ANR. Appearance: Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Debjani Ghosh, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.De, Adv...for the respondent No.2. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. The Court : The fiRs.respondent is not represented. The second respondent is represented and does not question the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement of February 5, 2008. The fiRs.respondent had replied to the letter issued by the petitioner invoking the arbitration agreement. In such response of the fiRs.respondent on March 3, 2014 to the petitioners invocation of the arbitration agreement by the letter dated January 16, 2014, the fiRs.respondent asserted that the disputes that were reflected from the letter of invocation did not pertain to t...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Vs. Sharan Raj Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
AP No.1059 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus SHARAN RAJ SINGH & ANR. Appearance Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.S.Nag, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. The Court : The respondents are represented. It is the undisputed position that subsequent to the payment of a sum of Rs.10 lakh after the institution of the petition, a sum in excess of Rs.16 lakh now remains due on account of defaulted instalments reckoned till today. There will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the petition which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the asset covered by the agrement in the usual couRs.of business till such time that the receiver takes possession thereof. The receiver will proceed to take possession of the asset covered by the agrement after the expiry of two weeks from date if a further sum of Rs.10 lakh is not tendered by way of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Daga and anr. Vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak G.A.No.266 of 2014 C.S.No.297 of 1989 Rajeev Daga & Anr. versus Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise LTD.For the Petitioners : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Advocate Ms.Sulagna Mukherjee, Advocate Ms.Surabhi Banerjee, Advocate For the Defendants : Mr.Swarnendu Ghosh, Advocate Ms.Tapati Chatterjee, Advocate Heard on : March 27, 2014 Judgment on : March 31, 2014 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. In a suit for possession and mesne profit, a Special Officer was appointed by the Order dated October 20, 1993. The Special Officer held a meeting on October 21, 1993 and made an inventory. The minutes of the meeting was at page 14 to 16 of the application. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on July 15, 2013. The appeal carried therefrom was dismissed on December 5, 2013. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that, the special leave petition against the judgement and order dated December 5, 2013...
Tag this Judgment!Arindam Investments Private Limited Vs. A.i.Champdany Industries Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
1 ORDER SHEET GA No.919 of 2014 APOT No.136 of 2014 CS No.220 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ARINDAM INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus A.I.CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Ms.Manju Bhutoria And Mr.Ravi Asopa. Learned Advocates For the appellant. Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury And Mr.Abhijit Guha Roy, ld. Advocates For the respondent. The Court :- This appeal would involve a very short question. We dispose of the appeal at the admission stage. The appellant and its sister concern filed six winding up petitions as against the respondent, interalia, making a money claim amounting to Rs.4.39 crore approximately. The petitions learned that gave Judge rise dismissed to a the Company winding appeal. up The Division Bench relegated the parties to suit by asking the respondent to secure the said sum of Rs.4.39 cro...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Vs. Icore Super Cement Pvt Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
AP No.1182 of 2013 AP No.1317 of 2013 AP No.1353 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT LTD Versus ICORE SUPER CEMENT PVT LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 31, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The respondent is not represented despite previous service and despite being made aware of the orders passed in the present proceedings. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.55 lakh is due under the three agreements covered by these matters only on account of defaulted instalments. Of the seven assets covered by these three matteRs.six assets are lying at Bodhjung Nagar Police Station in Agartala (West).The petitioner submits that the fiRs.respondent company apparently carried on chit fund business in Tripura and a large number of small depositors appear to have been cheated by the fiRs.respondent company. The petitioner 2 apprehends that the depositors might seek to...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Grant Logistics Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
AP No.441 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus GRANT LOGISTICS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The respondent is not represented despite service. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.1.70 crore is due upon the termination of the agreement, including an amount in excess of Rs.4.72 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. According to the petitioner, of the six assets covered by the agreement between the parties, the petitioner has obtained possession of one of the assets in terms of the agreement and the respondent has not protested the same. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of Rs.9 lakh is due only on account of defaulted instalments as on date, since the relevant figure appearing in the petition was the amount due as at the date of termination of the agreement. No immediate order is call...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Rai Dhanania @ Agarwal Vs. Pawan Properties and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
ORDER SHEET GA9092014 APO902014 CS6191985 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRAHLAD RAI DHANANIA @ AGARWAL Versus PAWAN PROPERTIES & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Mr.Moloy Ghosh, Advocate Mr.Ashis Chakraborty, Advocate Mr.Niladri Khanra, Advocate Mr.Atish Ghosh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Advocate Mr.Srenik Singhvi, Advocate for the respondent no.1. The Court : The appellant has filed an application, inter alia, asking for an order on the respondent no.1 to forthwith make over possession of the said premises to the Receiver appointed in CS1482002. Supporting the application Mr.Moloy Ghosh, learned Counsel would submit, the respondents obtained the judgment and order impugned suppressing the fact, two other suits are pending in one of which Receiver has already been appointed. This appeal was barred by 107 days. The appellant applied for...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Chatterjee Vs. Hdfc Bank Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
AP No.431 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RANA CHATTERJEE Versus HDFC BANK LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.K. Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : The petition cannot be entertained in view of what appears from the petition itself. It is the petitioners claim that an ex parte award was passed by the arbitrator and the petitioner had no notice of the arbitral proceedings. According to the petition, the petitioner had instituted a suit against the finance company in a Durgapur Court where the finance company applied on February 14, 2014 for rejection of the plaint and disclosed certain documents along with the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The petitioner says that it was upon noticing such documents that the petitioner has come to learn that the impugned award has been passed. The petitioner asserts that prior to February 14, 2014, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Biswajit Maji and anr. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE W.P.No.1190 of 2013 G.A.No.422 OF2014Biswajit Maji & Anr. Versus Coal India LTD.& ORS.BEFORE The Honble Justice HARISH TANDON Mr.Partha Ghosh, Adv..for the petitioners Mr.R.N.Majumder, Adv., Ms.S.Barman Roy, Adv..for the E.C.L.Mr.A.Lahiri, Adv..for the added applicants. Judgment On : 31.03.2014 HARISH TANDON, J : The challenge is made to a recruitment process for the post of Security Guard-Technical and Supervisor Grade G undertaking by the Eastern Coalfield Limited, the respondent no.2 herein, being the subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, the respondent no.1 herein, which is a Government of India undertaking, commenced on the basis of the advertisement/ notice no.1 of 2011 published on 25.06.2011. By the said notice, the applications were invited from Ex-Army/Ex-BSF personnel or NCC B&C Certificate Holder or Sportsman of All India repute for the above post. 215 vacancies were notified in the said notice and...
Tag this Judgment!Chandralekha Mitra Vs. Sajal Kumar Mitra and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
ORDER SHEET ALP No.20 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE CHANDRALEKHA MITRA Versus SAJAL KUMAR MITRA AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 31st March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Tilok Bose Sr.Adv.Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sourjya Roy, Adv.Mr.Utpol Bose, Adv.Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Adv.Mr.A.Roy, Adv.The Court: Mr.Tilok Kumar Bose learned Senior Advocate submits that due to inadvertence the third and fourth defendants in the suit, Kalyan Kumar Dey and Mitra S.K.Private Limited were omitted to be made parties in this Clause 13 read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure application. I find that it was a mistake and hence an inadvertent error has crept in. Let the cause title of this application be amended by adding the parties mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit as respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively. The suit in the Court below is of 2011. It was subsequently renumbered as title suit no.48 of 2013 (Sajal Kumar Mitra versus Saibal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »