Kolkata Court August 1954 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.
Meghraj Sampatlall Vs. Raghunath and Son
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal278
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. Three points have been taken by Mr. Dutt in support of this appeal. They did not find favour with S. R. Das Gupta, J., and do not commend themselves to us. 2. There was a contract entered into betweenthe parties on the 26th of August, 1949, underwhich the appellant was to sell and the respondents were to buy 150,000 yards of hessian cloth. The respondent's case is that on 20-9-1949, the contract of August was settled by second contract under which they were to sell and the appellant was to buy precisely the same quantity of -hessian cloth. The price fixed under the first contract was Rs. 51-2-0 per 100 yards, but that fixed under the second contract was Rs. 60-8-0 also per 100 yards. On a reference being made to arbitration under a clause which is in the usual form to be found in the Indian jute Mills Association contracts, the arbitrators have made an award computed on the difference between the rates fixed under the two contracts. 3. Mr. Dutt's first point befor...
Ramani Ranjan Bose Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Cal410,1955CriLJ1063,59CWN599
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order of a Municipal Magistrate under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, directing the demolition of a certain unauthorised structure. The principal point taken on the petitioner's behalf is that the Corporation's application for action under Section 363 of the Act having been made to the Municipal Magistrate after the new Act (West Bengal Act 33 of 1951) had come into force, the proceedings before the Municipal Magistrate and the order of demolition concerned were without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows; He is the lessee of a plot of land at No. 17, Parashar Road, Calcutta. At the date of the demise of the said land there stood upon it a dilapidated structure which was a partly tiled shed and a partly corrugated shed. The repairs to the structure which the petitioner subsequently caused resulted in the roof being made entirely of corrugated iron sheets. According to the petitioner, the old structure was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›