Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Kalindee Rail Nirman(Engineers) Ltd ... vs Texmaco Rail And Engineering Limited on 30 January, 2023

Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur

Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur

OD-2
                                 IA NO. CA/3/2022
                                  In CP/531/2015
                         IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                              ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE




       IN THE MATTER OF : KALINDEE RAIL NIRMAN(ENGINEERS) LTD -AND
                                     Vs
                 TEXMACO RAIL AND ENGINEERING LIMITED
                                    -VS-
                             BRIJ LATA GEMINI



BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 30th January, 2023.
                                                                              Appearance:
                                                                Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.
                                                                     Miss. A. Bangal, Adv.
                                                                      Miss. P. S. Roy, Adv.
                                                                           ...for applicant.


       The Court:- Affidavit of Service filed on behalf of the applicant be kept with

the records.

       None    appears   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   objector   nor    is   any

accommodation prayed for on their behalf.

The matter had been adjourned on an earlier occasion when the respondent objector was not represented.

By an order dated 27 June, 2016, a Co-ordinate Bench had directed the transferee company to secure the disputed amount i.e. Rs.5,99,30,650/- by furnishing a bank guarantee with an automatic renewal clause with the Registrar, Original Side. Pursuant to the said order the transferee company has furnished the 2 bank guarantee and kept the same renewed from time to time. The respondent objector had also been directed to file a suit and have its claim adjudicated before the appropriate fora.

It is submitted by the transferee company that no suit has been filed and no steps whatsoever have been taken by the respondent objector.

In view of the aforesaid, I find that the respondent objector has not been serious in pursuing its claim. There is a period of more than 5 years which has lapsed since the passing of this order. Accordingly, I find no reason as to why the transferee company should be compelled to keep the bank guarantee renewed with the Registrar, Original Side.

In view of the above, there shall be an order in terms of the prayer (a) of the Judge's Summons.

With the aforesaid directions, CA/3/2022 stands disposed of.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) SK.