Kolkata Court June 1956 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.
Sri Sri Nitai Gour Radheshyam Vs. Harekrishna Adhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal77
ORDERLahiri, J.1. The plaintiff who is the petitioner in this case instituted a suit on behalf of a deity for a declaration that certain alienations made by the defendants were invalid and were not binding upon the deity and also for certain other reliefs. The plaintiff is not the present shebait of the deity, but he claims to be the prospective shebait. The defendants are the present shebaits. The suit was instituted on 8-3-1954. On the date on which the plaint was filed there was a conflict of decisions in this Court on the question whether a person who is not the present shebait of the deity can institute a suit on behalf of the deity without obtaining the permission of the Court. Das and Sen JJ. held in two reported decisions that no such permission was necessary whereas Gentle and Pal JJ. held that such a permission was necessary. Ultimately the matter was decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Das Gupta and Guha JJ., in the case of Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna : A...
Mury Exportation Vs. D. Khaitan and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal644
ORDERP.B. Mukherji, J.1. This is a matter under the Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act, 1937. The petitioner is Mury Exportation, S. A. R. L. a French company incorporated and registered under the Laws of France having its principal office at 15, Rue dela Paix, Paris. The matter although initiated by a petition is treated as a suit under Section 5, Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act, 1937.2. The application or the suit is for filing the award made is Paris dated 18-2-1954 by the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris under Section 4, Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act which provides that any person interested in a foreign award may apply to any Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award that the award be filed in Court.3. The respondents are D. Khaitan & sons Limited, an Indian Company carrying on business at 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The award directed Khaiten & Sons Ltd., t...
In Re: Jagannath Hanumanbux and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal1
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: Ladhuram Taparia and Ganpatrai Taparla are two brothers. Hanumanbux and Ganeshmall are the sons of Labhuram. Sovachand is a son of Ganpatrai. There are four firms, namely, (1) Ladhuram Taparia, (2) Jagannath Hanumanbux, (3) Jagannath Harnarain and (4) Ganpatrai Jorawar-mal. It is claimed that these are partnership firms. The only outside partner is Bhairadan Maheswari in No. 1 firm and Mahalchand Bald and Kanayalal Lohia in firm No. 4. So far as firm No. 2 is concerned, with which we are directly interested in this application, it is claimed that the partners are Hanumanbux and Ganpatrai. These firms were being assessed for income-tax separately and the firm of Jagannath Hanumanbux was also registered under the income-tax Act separately, until the assess ment year 1945-46. In that year the Income tax authorities found that all these firms really were owned by Ladhuram and his brother Ganpatrai, carrying on business as Ladh...
Jagannath Hanumanbux Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR603(Cal)
ORDERThe facts in this case are shortly as follows :Ladhuram Taparia and Ganpatrai Taparia are two brothers. Hanumanbux and Ganeshmall are the sons of Ladhuram. Sovachand is a son of Ganpatrai. There are four firms, namely, (1) Ladhuram Taparia, (2) Jagannath Hanumanbux, (3) Jagannath Harnarain, and (4) Ganpatrai Jorawarmal. It is claimed that these are partnership firms. The only outside partner is Bhairadan Maheswari in No. 1 firm and Mahalchand Baid and Kanayalal Lohia in firm No. 4. So far as firm No. 2 is concerned, with which we are directly interested in this application, it is claimed that the partners are Hanumanbux and Ganpatrai. These firms were being assessed for income-tax separately and the firm of Jagannath Hanumanbux was also registered under the Income-tax Act separately, until the assessment year 1945-46. In that year, the Income-tax authorities found that all these firms really were owned by Ladhuram and his brother Ganpatrai, carrying on business as Ladhuram Taparia...
Burn and Co. Vs. Jitendra Nath Maitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Cal592
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The petitioner is a company and has an engineering workshop known as Howrah Iron Works. By an order dated 8-1-1955, the Government of West Bengal referred to the first respondent, the Third Industrial Tribunal, an industrial dispute between the petitioner and its workmen, represented by the second, third and fourth respondents, who are trade unions of such workmen. The dispute referred to relates to bonus for the year ended 30-4-1953. It appears that before the Tribunal, the Burn's Employees' Union applied on 12-9-1955 for an order directing the company to allow its representative inspection of certain documents mentioned in the petition. The company opposed the prayer. On 6-10-1955 the Tribunal ordered as follows: 'Heard representatives of the parties concerned. Without prejudice to the question whether the bonus in question has to be calculated on the trading results of the entire company or of the particular unit before this tribunal, the company is directed to all...
K.N. Nag and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ128
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J.1. These three revision petitions are on behalf of K. N. Nag, M. L. Daga and G. D. Bhattar, Manager, Agent and Managing Director, respectively, of Radhamadhabpore Colliery at Asansol. They were prosecuted before a Magistrate of the First Class, Asansol, upon a charge under Section 15(3) (b) of the Bengal Mining Settlements Act, 1912, for contravention of Rr. 25 (i) and 27 (ii) of the bye-laws issued under that Act. The Magistrate found them guilty and convicted them under the said section and sentenced them, - the first two to pay a fine each of Rs. 60/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and the third G. D. Bhattar to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The Prosecution case, briefly, was that the Radhamadhabpore Colliery within Asansol Mining Settlement area was owned by Ghasick Chand Moslea Collieries Limited of which G. D. Bhattar was the Managing Director. The Sanitary Inspecto...
Raliance Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal151
ORDERMallick, J. 1. This is an application for leave to revoke a submission. The language of paragraph (a) of the notice of motion is not really happy and Mr. Deb rightly pointed out that the only order that can be passed is granting leave to the petitioner to revoke the submission.2. The parties hereto entered into a contract whereby the petitioner was to manufacture and supply packing boxes to the respondent at a particular price. The respondent was under obligation to arrange for the release of timber and from materials required for the fabrication of the packing boxes. The contract is evidenced by the acceptance of tender as is usual in the case of Government contracts and it contains the usual condition to be found in government contracts in what is known as form No. WSB133. The obligation of the Government to release and supply timber and iron materials required for the purpose of fabrication of boxes is evidenced by a letter dated September 6, 1944. The schedule to the acceptanc...
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Provat Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1956
Reported in: (1957)ILLJ223Cal
Bachawat, J.1. The plaintiff was appointed a tracer by the Damodar Valley Corporation with effect from 17 January 1949. The letter of appointment must be read with the appointment offer dated 3 January 1949. The duration of the appointment was three years. The appointment was terminable on one month's notice on either side. The period of probation was up to 28 February 1910.2. By letter dated 27 April 1949, Mr. R.N. Lahiri, the Executive Engineer of the defendant Corporation, Panchet Hill Division, suspended the plaintiff from office work in his division from 28 April 1919 forenoon till the defendant Corporation decided finally his case.3. By office order dated 21 May 1949, Mr. Sohan Lal, Director of Personnel of the defendant Corporation, directed that the plaintiff be removed from Corporal ton services with effect from 28 April 1949. On receipt of this order, the plaintiff, by letter dated 8 June 1949, stated that he ha d the misfortune to be summarily dismissed from his service for ...
Nilmoni Sardar and ors. Vs. Baidyanath Das Manna and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal140
R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. The principal point raised in this appeal on be half of the plaintiffs is whether they are entitled to interest pendente lite in terms of the contract from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of redemption. The facts are all admitted. The plaintiffs filed the suit for enforcing a mortgage executed in October, 1945, the principal amount being Rs. 5000/-and the rate of interest stipulated 8 per cent, per annum The plaintiffs claimed the principal amount together with interest which had accrued up to the date of the suit as also future interest and interest pendents lite at the rate mentioned in the mortgage bond as well as costs. Though the defendant had denied in the written statement that he had borrowed from the plaintiffs the principal amount or created the mortgage, at the time of the trial such defence was not pressed. The only point raised by the defence was about the number of instalments which the Court should allow for the payment of the decre...
Bharat Chandra Bera Vs. Rajendra Nath Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1961Cal155,64CWN734
ORDERS.C. Lahiri, J.1. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties in these cases at some length because I am of opinion that the questions I have to decide in these two Rules are of some importance. These two Rules have been obtained by the judgment-debtor in a proceeding for setting aside an auction sale held on 8-9-1952. The facts which are undisputed are as follows:One Nalini Bala Ghose obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 291/4/- against the petitioner and that decree was put into execution in Money Execution Case No. 25 of 1952. The property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale and it was purchased on the 8th September, 1952 by a stranger named Rajendra Nath Ghose. The Civil Court remained closed for the Puja holidays from 17-9-1952 upto 20-10-1952 and reopened on 21-10-1952. On that date the judgment-debtor petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale by making necessary deposits. His case i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »