Kolkata Court June 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 Limited Vs. M/S. Ggs Infrastructures Private Li ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.429 of 2014 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED -VersusM/S.GGS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AP No.430 of 2014 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED -VersusM/S.GGS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AP No.448 of 2014 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED -VersusM/S.GGS INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Arik Banerjee, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 11, 2014. The Court : There is no dispute that a substantial sum remains due from the respondent to the petitioner only on account of defaulted instalments payable under a settlement agreement. Following a previous round of proceedings upon the finance company complaining of the respondents failure to pay the instalments due under the finance agreement, a settlement was arrived at between the parties under which the respondent was required to make payments in monthly instal...
Madhusudan Garai Vs. Executive Engineer,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
A.P.No.233 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MADHUSUDAN GARAI Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NADIA HIGHWAY DIVISION No.1 & ANR. Appearance Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Dwaipayan Basu Mullick, Adv.Mr.Amitava Chowdhury, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 11, 2014. The Court : The petitioner says that notwithstanding this petition having been inspired by an observation in a Constitution Bench judgment on a question that did not directly fall for consideration of the Constitution Bench, the petitioner is now convinced that the mere situs of the arbitration proceedings in a domestic arbitration cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings are held, to entertain a petition under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In effect, the petitioner accepts that Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act has primacy notwithstanding any view that may have been expressed elsewh...
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. Vs. Alla Lokesh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
AP No.275 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.-VersusALLA LOKESH & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 11, 2014. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service and despite made aware of the order dated March 10, 2014. The petition speaks of a claim in excess of Rs.25.96 lakh upon the termination of the agreement, including an amount in excess of Rs.3.50 lakh on account of defaulted instalments. The petitioner says that no money has been received from the respondents after the issuance of the notice of termination. The petitioner submits that an ex parte order was obtained by the respondents from a Consumer Forum in Odisha restraining the petitioner from taking possession of the asset covered by the agreement. Since the respondents show no interest in the matter despite being made aware thereof, Ms.M...
L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Mahendar Rai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
AP No.128 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusMAHENDAR RAI & ANR. Appearance: Ms.Somashree Das, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 11, 2014. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The receiver has made an inventory of the asset and has filed a report. According to the receivers report, the vehicle covered by the agreement has been seized by the forest officials in Jharkhand for the vehicle apparently transgressing the forest limits or illegally carrying forest produce. Since the inventory of the asset has been made and the arbitral reference ought to have progressed substantially by now, A.P.No.128 of 2014 is disposed of by confirming the subsisting order of injunction which will, however, not prevent the respondents from using the vehicle in the usual couRs.of business unless interdicted by an order of an appropriate forum. The...
Promode Kr. Bajan Vs. Shew Ratan Bajaj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.1724 of 2014 With C.S.No.58 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PROMODE KR. BAJAN Versus SHEW RATAN BAJAJ & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 11th June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Swapan Kr. Mullick, Adv.Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv..for the plaintiffs Mr.Amitavo Das, Adv.Mr.Adil Rashid, Adv. for the defendant Nos.1 & 3A Mr.R.C.Prusti, Adv.Mr.J.N.Manna, Adv. for the defendant no.4 Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. for the defendant Nos.5A, 5B & 5C Ms.Nandini Mitra, Adv.Mr.Pradeep Sarwgi, Adv. for the respondent no.6 The Court: The application was for recalling of two orders dated April 16, 2014 and May 6, 2014. The application was at the behest of the defendant no.1. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant no.1 that the orders dated April 16, 2014 and May 6, 2014 were passed on the applications for amendments that the defendant Nos.1 and 3A had made at that point of time. Amendments were subsequently allowed by thi...
Vck Share and Stock Broking Services Ltd. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
GA No.2265 of 2010 CS No.266 of 2004 with GA No.1007 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION VCK Share & Stock Broking Services LTD.Versus Bank of Rajasthan LTD.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 11th June 2014 Appearance: Mr.N.M. Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Choudhury, Advocate Mr.Brajesh Jha, Advocate Mr.Arif Ali, Advocate Md.Bani Israil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Tilok Bose, Sr.Advocate Mr.Sudip Deb, Advocate Mr.Utsav Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Bodhisatta Biswas, Advocate for the respondent The Court: The application GA No.1007 of 2011 is treated as on the days and disposed of with this application (GA No.2265 of 2010) by the following order: It is true that this suit was filed on 29th September 2004 and today learned counsel for the plaintiff is praying for extension of time to lodge the Writ of Summons with the Sheriff. But none can deny that for almost six years this Court did not even find time to scrutinise the plaint. It was on...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
ORDER SHEET CP No.712 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF:M/S.M.S. GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.AND M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.(RMC DIVISION ) BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 11th June, 2014. Mr.Tapan Coommaar Dey,Adv..for Petitioning creditor. Mr.Manas Dasgupta, Adv..for company. The Court :-This winding up petition has been filed for payment which arises on account of price of goods sold and delivered. According to the petitioning creditor goods were supplied and Rs.28,03,725/- out of has a total been sum paid of Rs.72,43,653/- thereby leaving a a sum sum of of Rs.44,39,928/- due and payable by the company to the petitioning creditor. For non-payment a statutory notice was issued on 16th August, 2013 and reply has also been given thereto. A demand draft aggregating to Rs.3,50,000/- was enclosed with the reply to the statutory notice in lieu of dishonoured cheque. Counsel appearing for the company does not dispute the liability of the company to make...
Tata Motors Finance Limited Vs. Md. Firoj Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.818 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.FIROJ KHAN & ANR. AP No.823 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.FIROJ KHAN & ANR. AP No.846 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.FIROJ KHAN & ANR. AP No.819 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- MOHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN & ANR. AP No.825 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- MOHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN & ANR. AP No.848 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- MOHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN & ANR. AP No.824 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.SHAMIM KHAN & ANR. AP No.850 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.SHAMIM KHAN & ANR. 2 AP No.851 of 2014 TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED -Versus- Md.SHAMIM KHAN & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 11, 2014. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite deemed service. The petitioner ...
Bhulu Chandra Chandra and anr. Vs. Badal Chandra Goswami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.1632 of 2014 GA No.1633 of 2014 APOT No.276 of 2014 WP No.207 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PARESH CHANDRA CHANDRA @ BHULU CHANDRA CHANDRA & ANR. Versus BADAL CHANDRA GOSWAMI & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE Date: 11th June, 2014 Mr.Arindam Banerjee, Adv.with Mr.Bharat Bhusan, Adv..for the appellants Md.Yamin Ali, Adv..for the private respondent Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.with Mr.Debangshu Mondal, Adv..for the KMC Ms.Sipra Majumdar, Adv.with Ms.Prativa Ghatak, Adv..for the State Ref: G.A.No.1632 of 2014 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the averments made in this application, we are satisfied that sufficient reasons have been furnished and adequate grounds have been mentioned in this application for condoni...
New Betar Bidyut Vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2014
ORDER SHEET AP1402009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NEW BETAR BIDYUT Versus TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 11th June, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Bijon Majumder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Advocate Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate for the respondent. The Court : This Section 11 application has to be dismissed. The subject contact was entered into between the parties on 7th January, 1999. Disputes were raised by the petitioner by their letter dated 21st January, 2008. Relying on an arbitration clause, the petitioner called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator. The arbitration clause has been set out in the body of the petition. On close scrutiny it appears that it was an arbitration clause relating to a Standard Form of Contract of the respondent for the year 1991. In the supplementary affidavit brought on record by the respondent the 1999 Standard Form of Con...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »