Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Idcol Cement Ltd. vs P. Roy Chowdhury And Company And Ors. on 29 June, 2004

Sh. Deepak Dhingra vs Sh. Rakesh Dhingra Dhingra on 2 November, 2022

20. The judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IDCOL Cement Limited Vs. P. Roy Chowdhury and Company 2005 (1) CHN158, in my considered opinion, is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the case before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against a partnership firm (defendant no. 1), two of its partners (defendants no. 2 and 3) and 13 other defendants who were not a parties to the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 firm. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that the matter could not have been referred to arbitration on an application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by one of the partners of defendant no. 1 firm in his individual capacity and not for and on behalf of partnership firm. On the other hand, in the present case the dispute is between the partners of a firm who all are parties to the arbitration agreement in their individual capacity.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basundhara Towers Pvt. Limited And Anr. vs Binapani Daw And Ors. on 21 December, 2005

17. To resolve the subject controversy view of the Apex Court in the case of Sukanya Holdings (supra) as followed by our Court in the case of Joynath Shaw v. Bijoy Kumar Gupta and Ors. (supra) and Idcol Cement Ltd. v. P. Roy Chowdhury and Company and Ors. (supra) would be the guiding factor. Hence, I do not wish to deal with other cases cited by the parties.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Banu Bibi & Anr on 9 July, 2010

Mr. Chakraborty also cited various judgments in support of his submission which are as follows : 2009 (2) CHN 597 (GE Capital Vs. Amritajit Mitra), (2003) 5 SCC 531 (Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Joyesh Pandys & Anr.), 2005 (1) CHN 159 (Idcol Cement Ltd. Vs. P. Roy Chowdhury), (2008) 2 SCC 602 (Atul Singh & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh & Anr.) and (2000) 4 SCC 539 (P. Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors. Vs. P.V.G Raju (Dead) & Ors.) The opposite party no. 1 has filed the said suit alleging that for the purpose of financial assistance in buying the motor vehicle in question, she approached the opposite party no. 2 who agreed to grant to extend the loan of Rs. 3,94,000/-. In an earlier part of the 7 month of October, 2004 the petitioner granted the loan to the opposite party no. 1 for purchase of the said vehicle and the loan amount with accrued interest was agreed to be repaid in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs. 11,097/- commencing on and from 5th November 2004. It is further alleged that the said loan was agreed to be granted strictly in terms of the RBI guidelines. At the time of granting the loan the opposite party no. 2 got the opposite party no. 1 signed various blank documents and papers about 60-70 numbers which the opposite party no. 1 in good faith executed and signed without ascertaining the contents therein. Thus the opposite party no. 2 has practised fraud upon the opposite party no. 1. It is only on October 29, 2004 opposite party no. 2 issued a letter to the opposite party no. 1 indicating that the loan has been extended to her by the petitioner and the payments of installments to be made directly to the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H Tandon - Full Document
1