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

Skipper Ltd vs Akash Bansal & Ors on 8 June, 2016

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

                            GA No. 417 of 2016
                                   with
                              CS No. 7 of 2016
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                                                                      Skipper Ltd.
                                                                           Versus
                                                               Akash Bansal & Ors.



Before:
The Hon'ble Justice HARISH TANDON
Date: 8th June 2016


                                                                      Appearance:
                                                   Mr. Debangshu Basak, Advocate
                                                         Mr. S. Sengupta, Advocate
                                                       for the defendant/petitioner
                                               Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Advocate
                                           Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Advocate
                                                            Mr. P. Eduji, Advocate
                                                     Mr. Siddharth Das, Advocate
                                                        Mr. S. Banerjee, Advocate
                                                      for the plaintiff/respondent

The Court: This is an application seeking revocation of leave of Clause 12 of the Letter's Patent. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff prays for a direction to file affidavit. The petitioner prays for an interim order to the effect that the suit shall not be posted as undefended suit. Mr. Bachawat, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff assures this Court that his client would not take further steps to invite the suit to be listed as undefended suit.

In view of such assurances this Court does not feel that any interim order is required to be passed to that effect.

2

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. The matter will appear as "For Order" three weeks hence in the supplementary list.

Let this application appear along with GA No. 237 of 2016. Affidavit-in- reply is extended for a period of two weeks from date.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) R. Bose AR(CR)