Kolkata Court July 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.
Bharat Opthalmic Glass Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
CA No.1043 of 2011 BIFR No.532 of 1992 CA No.319 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction BHARAT OPTHALMIC GLASS LTD.& ORS.-VersusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.- And AKSHOY KUMAR MALLICK & ORS.Appearance: Ms.Ajea Mitra, Adv.Md.Idrish, Adv...for the petitioners Ms.Ruma Sikdar, Adv...for the official liquidator. Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Adv.Mr.Arindam Sen, Adv...for the Central Government. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : July 28, 2014 The Court : CA No.319 of 2013 is an application for recalling an order dated March 15, 2013 passed in connection with the company in liquidation. As would be evident from the relevant order, the Central Government was in control of the company prior to its liquidation. A number of the employees of the company in liquidation have not been paid their dues and it was in such connection that the Court sought the views of learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government as to whether the Central Government w...
Bengal India Global Infrastructure Limited and ors. Vs. Andhra Bank an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
GA No.2293 of 2014 with CS No.114 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Bengal India Global Infrastructure Limited & ORS.Versus Andhra Bank & ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 28th July 2014 Appearance: Mr.Pramit Kr. Ray, Sr.Advocate Ms.Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.R.S. Mantha, Advocate for Andhra Bank Mr.Siddhartha Banerjee, Advocate for respondent No.4 The Court: The question before this Court, at the ad interim stage, is whether the plaintiffs are defaulters or whether they can be classified as willful defaulters. The Reserve Bank of India has published guidelines defining who is a willful defaulter. From its guidelines as produced by Mr.Pramit Kumar Ray, learned senior advocate, it appears that before declaring a borrower or a guarantor as a willful defaulter, his representation has to be considered and he should be given a hearing. The decision declaring him as a willful defaulter should contain reasons. Mr.R...
Provat Kumar Mitra and anr. Vs. Sudipto Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
ALP No.12 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PROVAT KUMAR MITRA & ANR. Versus SUDIPTO MITRA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 28th July, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Advocate Mr.Aditya Naskar, Advocate Mr.Subhajit Saha, Advocate for respondent No.2 The Court: None appears for the petitioners although this application has appeared more than once as For Orders. This is an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No accommodation is sought on behalf of the petitioners although Mr.Saha, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the second respondent. He shows me an order dated 29th October, 2013 passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India directing the court below to dispose of the suit expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment. Although about nine months have elapsed since passing of this order by the Honble Supreme Court of India, no p...
Mr. S.S. Bose, Ad Vs. …for the Petitioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.431 of 2014 CP No.78 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE BENGAL WATERPROOF LTD.AND ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 28th July, 2014. Mr.Moinak Bose, Mr.S.S.Bose, Adversus for the petitioner Mr.D.N.Sharma, Adv.for the company The Court : By order dated 20th September, 2011 the company petition was admitted for Rs.1,16,48,099.60 p. The said sum was to be liquidated in instalments of Rs.2 lakh per month for the fiRs.six months and Rs.4 lakh thereafter. Except for two instalments of Rs.2 lakh each, no further sum has been paid by the company to the petitioning creditor. Accordingly, let for the fiRs.six months a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh be paid by the company to the petitioning creditor. The fiRs.of such instalment be paid by 31st July, 2014 and the last day of each succeeding month. Thereafter for the next six months let a sum of Rs.1.75 lakh be paid and after a period of 12 months in aggregate let balance...
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Inland Vikas Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
AP No.1066 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.-VersusINLAND VIKAS LIMITED Appearance: Mr.Kishore Dutta, Adv.Mr.Ashok Kumar Jena, Adv...for the petitioner. Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : July 28, 2014. The Court : This is a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator in place and stead of the arbitrator appointed by the order of November 29, 2010. Since there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the arbitrator had expressed any unwillingness to continue with the reference, an order was made on July 10, 2014 for the petitioner to serve a copy of such order on the arbitrator for the arbitrators response thereto. The arbitrator has replied on July 18, 2014 categorically indicating that the arbitrator would not continue with the reference due to health probleMs.The arbitrator also tendered his resignation by suc...
Abhishek Tea Industries Vs. Aspen Projects India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA NO.2208 OF2014WITH CS NO.251 OF2014IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ABHISHEK TEA INDUSTRIES Versus ASPEN PROJECTS INDIA LTD.& ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 28th July, 2014. Mr.J.Chowdhury, Mr.C.Gupta, Mr.S.Ghosh, Mr.A.Agarwalla appear. Mr.S.K.BasuappeaRs.The Court : The cause of action of the plaintiff is founded on goods sold and delivered by them to the fiRs.to ninth defendants. This is disputed by Mr.Basu for the fiRs.defendant by saying that that the contract was only between the plaintiff and the fiRs.defendant. The claim of the plaintiff on this account is Rs.13,31,312/- upto 30th April, 2014 exclusive of the interest claimed. Now, it appears that from time to time the fiRs.defendant issued three cheques for Rs.1,11,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff. These cheques were replaced by them from time to time, upon being dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Lastly, the fiRs.defendant issued three...
Can Bank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA2336of 2014 With CS357of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CAN BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.Versus SHAW WALLACE & Co.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 28th July, 2014. Mr.Soumen Das, Adv..for the plaintiff. Mr.A.C.Kar, Adv..for the defendant. Ms.M.Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.S.S.Bose, Adv.Mr.S.Datta, Adv..for the defendant no.2. The Court: The plaintiff wanted examination of its witness on commission. The witness of the plaintiff is stationed at Bangalore. It is submitted that it would be convenient for the plaintiff and its witness in the event the witness of the plaintiff is examined at Kolkata during the week end. Considered the prayer of the plaintiff. The witness of the plaintiff was examined in chief in Court and he was in the midst of the cross-examination by the defendant no.1. In my view, interest of justice would be subserved if the prayer of the plaintiff is allowed. Mr.Nilendu Bhattacharya, Advoca...
Pramod Kr.Bajaj Vs. Shew Ratan Bajaj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
ORDER SHEET GA2111of 2014 With CS58of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRAMOD KR.BAJAJ Versus SHEW RATAN BAJAJ BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 28th July, 2014. Mr.Supratim Laha, Adv.Mr.Shantanu Saha, Adv..for the plaintiff. Mr.Rupak Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Kausik Chatterjee, Adv..for defendant nos.1 & 3A. Mr.J.N.Manns, Adv..for defendant no.4. Mr.R.Dutta, Adv..for defendant nos.5A, 5B & 5C. Mrs.Nandini Mitra, Adv.Mr.Pradip Sarawagi,Adv..for defendant no.6. Mr.Swarup Ghose, Adv.Mr.Shyamal Chaudhury, Adv...for defendant nos.7 & 9. The Court: The application is for rejection of portions of the additional written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and 3A. The defendant nos.5A, 5B and 5C contend in support of their application that defendant nos.1 and 3A made an application in 2006 for incorporating a counter-claim in their written statement filed the suit. Such application was allowed on February 26, 2008. However, the suit wa...
Indian ChaIn Private Limited. Vs. Ajit NaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Honble Justice Soumen Sen C.S.158 of 2008 Indian Chain Private Limited. versus Ajit Nain & Anr. For the Plaintiff : Mr.Pradip Kumar Jewrajka. For the Defendants : Mr.Jaydeb Ghorai. Heard on : 07.06.2013, 17.06.2013, 03.07.2013, 10.07.2013, 22.07.2013, 29.07.2013, 07.08.2013, 14.08.2013, 19.08.2013, 21.08.2013, 18.09.2013, 08.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 24.01.2014, 27.01.2014, 28.01.2014, 11.03.2014, 02.05.2014(C.A.V) Judgment on : 28th July, 2014 Soumen Sen, J:- The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of money lent and advanced and for enforcement of mortgage. The case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is summarized below. On or about 26th September, 1994, the plaintiff had lent and advanced a sum of Rs.20 lacs to Ajit Nain, defendant no.1, on terms of an agreement that the said sum would be repaid by him in five monthly installments of Rs.4 lacs each commencing from January 1995 ...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. Mili Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
AP No.287 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE L & T FINANCE LIMITED Versus MILI DUTTA & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 28th July, 2014. Appearance: Ms.M.Bose, Adv.Mr.D.K. Samanta, Adv.Mr.M.M. Roy, Adv.The Court : The respondents are represented and it is submitted that in view of the payments due to the respondents not being made by the government agency whereat the assets in question have been engaged, the respondents have defaulted in making payment to the finance company. The respondents offer to pay off a sum of Rs.10 lakh immediately and suggest that the balance payment would be made only after October, 2014. Since the outstanding amount is to the tune of Rs.52 lakh only on account of defaulted instalments, the respondents are directed to make an immediate payment of a sum of Rs.20 lakh within a fortnight from date. In the event such payment is not made, by way of a demand draft or bankers cheque or like...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »