Kolkata Court March 2014 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 Equipment Finance Ltd. Vs. Shree Mahalaxmi Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
AP No.1354 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.Versus SHREE MAHALAXMI CORPORATION PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 14th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.S.Yadav, Adv.The Court : The respondent is represented and says that it is unable to make immediate payment. The petitioner claims that a sum in excess of 70 lakh is due only on account of defaulted instalments. The Receiver reports that in couRs.of the Receivers visit, the Receiver was informed that the four EOT cranes covered by the agreement would take a long time to dismantle; whereupon the Receiver had appointed an agent for the purpose of dismantling the cranes. The Receiver says that such work has not yet been completed. The petitioner seeks a direction for sale of the assets on as is where is basis with the purchaser being at liberty to dismantle and remove the cranes. The respondent submits that sufficient time shoul...
Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
AP No.32 of 2014 AP No.40 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus PRADEEP KUMAR & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 27th March, 2014. Appearance: Ms.Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.Mr.K.K. Pandey, Adv.Mr.P.Biswas, Adv.Mr.B.K. Banerjee, Adv.The Court : These petitions had been adjourned several times before being taken up effectively on February 28, 2014. The adjournments were on the prayer of the respondents and the representation that some payment would be made. The order dated February 28, 2014 required a payment of Rs.15 lakh to be made by the respondents to the petitioner before the matter was taken up on March 6, 2014. It is not in dispute that such payment of Rs.15 lakh has not been made. A payment of Rs.3 lakh has been received by the petitioner, but the petitioner claims that such payment is the one that had been made by the respondents prior to the order dated February 28, 2014 which has got credited subs...
Srikant Mantri Vs. Hari Prasad Mantri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.506 of 2014 With E.O.S.No.41 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA EXTRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE SRIKANT MANTRI Versus HARI PRASAD MANTRI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 27th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Samrat Sen, Adv.Mr.R.L.Mitra, Adv.Ms.P.Dhar, Adv. for the plaintiff Mr.P.K.Ghose, Sr.Adv.Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.Mr.S.Mitra, Adv.Mr.R.K.Mitra, Adv. for the defendant MRS.Suparna Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.D.Ghoshal, Adv.Mr.N.Khanra, Adv. for the defendant No.9 The Court: Pursuant to the Subpoena dated March 25, 2014, Mr.Biswanath Mistry, Group D staff, produced some documents. Let the documents be kept on record. The parties admitted that the documents produced today pursuant to the Subpoena were required to be considered in G.A.No.506 of 2014. Mr.Ghose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no.1, submitted that the documents could not be marked as exhibits. However, he submitted that the document...
Cit. Kol1i Vs. M/S Hsil Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
ORDER SHEET AWT No.2 of 2014 GA. No.168 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CIT. KOL-1I Versus M/S HSIL LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 27th March, 2014. For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.P.K. Bhowmik, Adv.For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.P.Bag, Adv.Mr.C.S. Das, Adv.The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 27th August, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue for the following reasons;We find the scope of section 2(ea) does not include urban land but once the land so held is part of the industrial undertaking or factory it ceases to have the independent character as urban land, it is a part and parcel of the industrial undertaking, factory or business premises as the case may be. The mere fact that a part of land, which is held as factory, is sold by the assessee as a piece...
Nasiruddin, Residing at Village-palanja, Purulia Vs. National Insuranc ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2013 in EA No.05/2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purulia, whereby the execution has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Dhr. thereof has preferred this appeal. It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any incongruity so as to make any interference therein, or not. Decision with reasons. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there has been certain modification made by this commission by order dated 02.12.2010 in FA No. 270/2010 against the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purulia in Case No. 07/2009, but the Insurance Company did not comply the modified portion of the impugned order, for which EA No. 05/2012 has been made by the Complainant. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the Insurance Company has paid the amount of Rs.2,00,454/- as per the final order in the matter, a...
Gaurav Gupta Vs. the O/L and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET ACO432014 APOT1282014 CP1161996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RE: REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD (IN LIQN) -ANDGAURAV GUPTA -VSTHE O/L & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 26th March, 2014. Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vinay Misra, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr.Aniruddha Ray, Advocate for the workeRs.Mrs.Ruma Sikhdar, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. The Court : This appeal would arise out of an order passed by the learned Company Judge in a winding-up proceeding. The subject property was leased out to the company [in liquidation].as claimed by one Nand Kishore Singla stated to be the owner of the property. However, properties are in occupation of the appellant who claims to be the new tenant under the owner. This question would be decided at the hearing of the appeal. The learned Judge asked the Official Liquidator to take possession. Accord...
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. Vs. Mr. SarfuddIn Ansari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
AP No.1350 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.Versus Mr.SARFUDDIN ANSARI & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 26th March, 2014. Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.appears The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The Receiver has filed a report from which it appears that one of the two excavators that form the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties has apparently been sold by the respondents to a third party and the other excavator is at a remote place which the Receiver could not access. Since the respondents show no interest in the matter and it appears that one of the assets may have been transferred to a third party despite the agreement recognising the petitioning finance company to be the owner thereof, the Receiver is directed to take possession of the other excavator in possession of the respondents. The Receiver may seek and obtain police assistance, if n...
Sas Investments Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CA No.654 of 2007 With CP No.553 of 1999 BHARAT MARGARINE LTD.(IN LIQN.) And SAS INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY LTD.Versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA CA No.410 of 2008 With CP No.553 of 1999 BHARAT MARGARINE LTD.(IN LIQN.) AND SAS INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY LTD.VERSUS THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA CA No.515 of 2009 With CP No.553 of 1999 ARUP KUMAR AGARWALA Versus BHARAT MARGARINE LTD.(IN LIQN.) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 26th March, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Adv.Mr.Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.R.S.De, Adv.Mr.K.C.Garg, Mr.S.Sanyal, Adv.The Court : These applications have been filed under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 for stay of the order of winding up. Discharge of the Official Liquidator was also sought and list of details of creditors who had participated in the winding up proceedings. In the said applications from time to time supplementary affidav...
Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. G.S.Atwal and Co. (Eng) Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
ORDER SHEET CS85of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. Versus G.S.ATWAL & CO. (ENG) PVT. LTD. & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date :26. h March, 2014. Mr.Druba Ghosh, Adv. appears The Court: By consent of the parties the defendant documents being defendant document no.2 and on and from defendant document no.4 to defendant document No.22 and defendant document no.24 to defendant document no.37, defendant document no.40 and 41 are marked exhibits as follows :- Sl. No.Particulars Documents Page No.of Exhibit. No.J.B.I Letter No.1502/A/SBICAP/91 dated 1. rd 23 September 1991 from G.S. Atwal DD-2 1 2 & Co.(Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. to SBI Capital Markets Ltd.2. Letter No.SBICAP No.1387 dated DD-4 12-13 3 DD-5 15-17 4 DD-6 18 5 DD-7 14 6 DD-8 19 7 DD-9 40 8 26th September 1991 from S B I Capital Makets Ltd. to Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd.3. Letter No.SBICAP No.1410 dated 28th September 1991 from S B I Capi...
Titagarh Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cimmco Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
GA No.3601 of 2013 with CS No.393 of 2013 GA No.830 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Titagarh Capital PVT.LTD.Versus Cimmco LTD.& ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 26th March 2014 Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Ms.Radhika Singh, Advocate Mr.S.Ghose, Advocate Ms.Sayanti Nandy, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Jaydip Kar, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Saha, Advocate Mr.Anirban Ray, Advocate Ms.Arpita Saha, Advocate Mr.Dipendra Nath Chandra, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.L.K. Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.A.K. Mishra, Advocate for Union of India The Court: FiRs.of all I will deal with the Section 8 application. Mr.Chatterjee submits that the subject matters of dispute in this suit and the proposed arbitration are same. Only in this suit the plaintiff is the additional party, claiming to be the owner or the lessor of the 687 wagons. There is an arbitration clause between the railways and Cimmco Limited covering the entire disputes between th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »