Kolkata Court July 2014 Judgments
Lalwani Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs. Maheshwary Steel Supply Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
GA No.3068 of 2012 GA No.19 of 2013 CS No.372 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE LALWANI FERRO ALLOYS LTD Versus MAHESHWARY STEEL SUPPLY Co.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance: Mr.J.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Adv.Mr.Anirudh Agarwalla, Adv.Ms.D.Deb Roy, Adv..for the plaintiff. Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.Ms.Soma Sharma, Adv..for the defendants. The Court : Both interlocutory petitions in the suit are for similar ordeRs.The plaintiff appears to have attempted a second bite of the cherry with an identical application after having failed to obtain any ad interim order on the original application. Since the plaintiff has succeeded, nothing further need be said as to how the plaintiff succeeded at the ad interim stage in the subsequent application. Affidavits have been filed in both matters and the rival cases now fall for consideration. It is the plaintiffs case that it made an adv...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Eci Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
AP No.1111 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION Co.LTD.Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Bijon Majumdar, Adv.Mr.Malay Kr. Das, Adv.The Court : The matter was taken up on July 30, 2014 and only two grounds were urged in challenging the impugned arbitral award. There is a class of lawyers who thrive on giving relief to undeserving litigants by preying on the system, most commonly by taking advantage of the notorious pendency of matters in court. This petition appears to be one where a party has no ground to challenge an award but a petition has been carried for the sole benefit of the profession and to ensure that the client gets an automatic stay on account of the Courts poor record of dealing with the matters pertaining to petitions for setting aside awards. It is necessary that petitions of such kind be tested at the fiRs.i...
Tag this Judgment!Geetecee Engineers and Constructers and ors. Vs. Alstom Power Boilers ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2323 of 2014 WITH CS No.370A of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GEETECEE ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTERS & ORS.Versus ALSTOM POWER BOILERS SERVICES LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.Mr.U.Goswami, Adv.for the plaintiff The Court: The application is for examining the witness of the plaintiff on commission. Similar application was allowed by me in C.S.No.317 of 1997. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that same documents as of C.S.No.317 of 1997 may be relied upon in this suit also. It is also submitted that the issues in the instant suit have already been settled. In spite of notice, none appears for the defendant. Considering that, the witness of the plaintiff has to leave station for his work, the application is allowed for the purpose of convenience. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the Judges Brief of Documents is ready and t...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar Nandan and anr. Vs. Nani Gopal Nandan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
GA No.1006 of 2014 CS No.1763 of 1959 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SUDHIR KUMAR NANDAN & ANR. Versus NANI GOPAL NANDAN & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance: Mr.S.Ghosh, Advocate Mr.S.Das, Advocate Ms.Sonal Shah, Advocate Mr.A.Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Pujon Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.Biswajit Tiwari, Advocate Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate The Court: Let the report filed by the Special Officer be taken on record. Copies thereof have been circulated to the parties. Ms.Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant, will aid the Special Officer so that the following steps may be taken :a) The plaintiffs will identify their belongings, said to be lying in locked rooms in the premises ; b) The said belongings will be inventorised ; c) Thereafter, the plaintiffs will be allowed to remove them ; d) The Special Officer aided by Ms.Shah will make an enquiry as to the quantity of municipal water received in ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhay Kumar Chopra Vs. Nicco Power Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
GA No.914 of 2013 CS No.224 of 2012 GA No.1127 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ABHAY KUMAR CHOPRA -VersusNICCO POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD.Appearance: Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv...for the plaintiff. Mr.Anubhav Sinha, Adv...for the defendant. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : July 31, 2014. The Court : No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed despite directions having been issued on July 4, 2013. The defendant chose not to use an affidavit despite the matter appearing in the warning list. The matter has appeared in the regular list for a month. It is evident that the defendant has no defence to the claim. The allegations in the petition stand admitted. In any event, the petitioner has relied on bills and challans in support of the claim and cheques for Rs.9 lakh and R.9,64,116 which have been dishonoured upon presentation on account of insufficient funds. Pursuant to the notice issued under ...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal MerlIn Housing Limited and anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Arindam Sinha W.P.No.866 of 2013 Bengal Merlin Housing Limited & Anr. versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ORS.For the petitioner : Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.A.K.Chakraborty, Adv.For the respondent : Mr.Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.Mr.Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv.(For the K.M.C) Heard on : 05.06.14, 10.06.14, 26.06.2014 & 01.07.14. Judgment on : 31st July, 2014. Arindam Sinha, J. The petitioners have challenged the demand made by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation by its letter dated 21st January, 2013 requesting the writ petitioner no.1 to arrange to deposit a sum of Rs.40,47,630/- for construction of box drain including supervision charges in place of the surface drain running in front of the premises of the said petitioner. Mr.Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon an unreported judgment dated 16th April, 2010 (Bodhi Art Limited & Anr. versus Kolka...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Ashish Sachdeva and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
AP No.769 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus ASHISH SACHDEVA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st July, 2014. Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Adv.appears The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The Receiver has made an inventory of the asset covered by the agreement and has filed a report. The petitioner says that this is the second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the petitioner, terms of settlement were entered into between the parties following the initiation of the fiRs.petition under Section 9 of the said Act. The petitioner says that a sum in excess of Rs.17 lakh now remains due and the respondents have failed to honour the terms of settlement. The petitioner also reports that an award has been passed in the petitioners favour on May 22, 2014. In view of the conduct of the respondents and their lack of interest in...
Tag this Judgment!Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd. Vs. Soumen Chattopadhyay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
GA No.2796 of 2012 CS No.334 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD.Versus SOUMEN CHATTOPADHYAY Appearance Ms.M.Chowdhury, Adv.Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.Mr.Ankur Jain, Adv.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : July 31, 2014. The Court : GA No.2796 of 2012 is the plaintiffs principal interlocutory application in a suit where the plaintiff claims that the respondent has divulged or attempted to divulge the trade secrets pertaining to the plaintiffs business that the defendant acquired during the defendants association with the plaintiff to otheRs.The plaintiff relies on the agreement between the parties that binds the defendant for a period of five yeaRs.The suit was instituted in the year 2012 but no steps were taken for the writ of summons to be served on the defendant within any reasonable time. An application was made in July, 2013 before the Master who, without notice to the defendant or reference...
Tag this Judgment!Geetecee Engineers Constructers Vs. Alstom Power Services Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.2322 of 2014 WITH CS No.317 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GEETECEE ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTERS Versus ALSTOM POWER SERVICES LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.Mr.U.Goswami, Adv.for the plaintiff The Court: The application is for examining the witness of the plaintiff on commission since the witness of the plaintiff is a resident of United States of America and is required to leave India for his work. In spite of service none appears on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff suggests six issues for trial. I have considered the pleadings and the following issues are settled: 1. What are the terms and conditions of the contract agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant?.2. Whether the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the contract?.3. Whether the defendant was responsible for the delay in execution of the work by the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. M/S. Tantia Constructions Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2014
AP No.975 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus M/S.TANTIA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 31st July, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Sounak Sengupta, Adv.The Court : The respondent is represented and says that since it has made a substantial payment, some accommodation should be given to it in view of its financial constraints. The petitioner says that this is the second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the fiRs.having been disposed of on the basis of the terms agreed to by the parties. The petitioner says that the respondent is in breach of the terms and a sum of about Rs.1.28 crore has now become due in accordance with the terMs.The matter had been adjourned previously since the respondent had submitted that the disputes would be resolved after a meeting with the Chief 2 Executive Officer of the finance company. The fin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »