Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-03-2010
1. Of the several interlocutory applications that have come up for hearing, the one urged first is the defendants application for rejection of the plaint relating to this suit on the principal ground that it is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants say that the first plaintiff had instituted a suit before the Sealdah court and another before the City Civil Court which were based on the same cause of action on which the present suit is founded. The defendants suggest that since the plaintiffs here and the sole plaintiff in the two earlier suits claim on behalf of the Motilal Pyne branch of the family, it would matter little that the second plaintiff, son of Motilal Pyne, was not a party to the previous suits instituted by his mother. The defendants contend that since the plaintiff in the two previous suits had not included the whole of the claim relating to the cause of action without the leave of either court, the plaintiffs here could not have launch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-21-2010
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a respondent in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against an order dated 16th June, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of the said application under Section 9 of the Act initiated by the present respondent by directing the appellant before us to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crore with the Registrar, Original Side, which would abide by the result of the reference. While passing such direction, His Lordship was of the view that the sum of Rs. 2 crore, which the present appellant had been directed to pay, was assessed at on the tentative assessment of the fact that 75 films were offered under the Memorandum of Understanding. The Registrar, Original Side was directed to invest the amount in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank and forward the copies of the fixed deposit receipt to the parties.2. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-01-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. To begin with, some hard facts relating to the proceedings need to be recorded without any comment for the moment. The disputes between the parties relate to the construction of certain buildings in Libya and the first letter of intent was issued sometime in March - April, 1980. By April, 1984 the construction was completed and the site handed over by the contractor. The final bill was raised on April 22, 1984. In or about June, 1986 the petitioner herein instituted a suit before this Court claiming a decree for Rs. 1.76 crore on account of interest bearing loans that the petitioner, as employer, had provided to the contractor.2. The contractor applied for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and succeeded. The order, thus, implied that the claim of the petitioner herein in the suit was covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties. A reference commenced before a departmental arbitrator and thereafter before another. By an orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-10-2010
Reported in : 2010(175)LC79(Calcutta)
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. This writ challenges a final order dated 2nd March 2006, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, EZB. This final order was passed by a majority of 2:1.2. This writ application was moved before the Court on 9th June, 2006. Directions for filing affidavits were made. No affidavit in opposition is available in the record, though I find an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. This goes to point that a copy of the intended affidavit-in-opposition was served by the respondents upon the petitioner but the affidavit-in-opposition was never filed in Court. The matter appeared in my list for hearing on 25th February, 2010. At the second call the matter was heard in part and was adjourned by me to enable the respondents to appear. I directed the Counsel for the petitioner to serve a notice upon the respondents. This notice was duly served, according to the records. On the adjourned date, even at the second call none appeared for the respondents. In those cir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-26-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The lessors have challenged an award passed by a departmental arbitrator to the extent that the arbitrator declined a claim for rent of four months. The lessors say, in the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that the arbitrator acted in derogation in terms of the contract and the award, to the extent challenged, is not in accordance with the substantive law of the land.2. Under an agreement of December 29, 2000, the petitioners demised unto the Government of India an area of 9400 sq. ft. on the ninth floor of premises No. 44, Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016. The Controller of Patents used the premises as his office. The agreement provided for enhancement of rent on a periodic basis. The petitioners carried two major heads of claim to the reference. The petitioners sought the enhanced rate for a particular period which the arbitrator allowed. The arbitrator also allowed interest on the unpaid enhanced rate. The arbi...
Tag this Judgment!