Kolkata Court September 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.
Rustom Ali Molla and ors. Vs. Bata Shoe Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal120,61CWN122
Mitter, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the District Judge of 24 Parganas, granting an interlocutory injunction against the defendants in a suit for infringement of a Trade Mark and for passing off.2. The plaintiffs are well-known manufacturers of footwear and other leather and rubber goods. It is said that they also manufacture socks and hosiery. They are the owners of the Trade Mark 'Bata' ia respect of 'canvas rubber leather shoes, rubber monolith (footwear), rubber heels, rubber soles, rubber plates (for shoes), leather soles, half-soles, heels, wooden heels socks and hosiery.' This Trade Mark was registered on July 8, 1946.3. Defendant No. 5 (one of the appellants herein) claims to have been using the said mark or name ''Bata' in respect of lungis. It is said that in August, 1953, he applied before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, for registering a Trade Mark under the name 'Bata Lungis'.4. It is common case that the plaintiffs have not so far manufactured lungis or hand...
Promode Lal Moitra Vs. Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal164,61CWN11
Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Baranagore, which is within the Jurisdiction of the Baranagore Municipality. For the purposes of the General election of the said municipality, fixed on 11-3-56, the final electoral Roll of the said Baranagore municipality was published under the Election Rules made under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and the petitioner's name appears as a male voter in Ward No. 3. The Respondent No. 3, Amar Mazumdar is also a recorded voter in the same Ward. For the purposes of the said election, both the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 filed their respective nomination papers with the Respondent No. 2, who is the Chairman of the Municipality. The nomination and registration of candidates standing in an election held under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, are governed by a set of rules framed by the Government of Bengal, under powers conferred by Section 44 of the said Act. Rule 17 lays down that not less than 45 d...
Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Coal Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal326,61CWN55
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner is the owner inter alia of a factory for the production of aluminium at Jayakanagar in the district of Burdwan. The said factory has a power house used for generating electricity. Adjacent to the factory the petitioner has a colliery known as the Jaykaynagar Colliery. The distance between the pithead of the colliery and the power house of the factory, is about one (urlong. The colliery has; an average annual output of seventy-five to eighty thousand tons of coal. It is stated that about 50,000 tons are consumed in the said power house for generation of electricity used in the factory for production of aluminium. The coal comes up from the shafts to the pithead and is taken by means of hand trolleys to the power house. Thus, the major portion of the output is consumed in the factory, the balance being sold to railways and others. To take...
Santosh Kumar Dhar Vs. Nanda Kishore Mallick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1958Cal56
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This is the lessee claimant's appeal arising; out of an apportionment case of the Calcutta. Improvement Tribunal. The parties mainly differ on the principle of apportionment to be applied in this particular case and also on the question whether the lessee is entitled to any benefit of his option of renewal, reserved in the relevant lease. There are other minor points of dispute but they do not require much discussion. The facts also are practically undisputed barring some which bear on the lessor's allegation that the appellant's lease is invalid and inoperative in law.2. Premises Nos. 35 and 35/1-A, Lower Circular Road, popularly known as Mallick Bazaar, comprised an approximate total area of 12 bighas. These two premises belonged to three persons, namely, Bholanath Mallick and his two counsin brothers Chandra Sekhar and Nanda Kishore Mallick. Bholanath owned a two-thirds share and the remaining one-third belonged to Chandra Sekhar and Nanda Kishore. The appellant...
Carrara Marble and Terrazo Co. Ltd. Vs. Charu Chandra Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal357,61CWN407
Lahiri, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for the ejectment of the defendant appellant from a portion of the ground floor of premises No. P21 Mission Row Extension, now renumbered as No. 7 Ganesh Chandra Avenue. The tenancy of the defendant consists of a hall and a bathroom with a privy on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises which at its inception bore a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- but which was subsequently increased to Rs. 284/10as.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was a monthly tenant whose tenancy ran according to English Calendar month and that the plaintiff had determined the tenancy by service of a notice to quit requiring the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry of the month of July, 1952, but as the defendant had failed to vacate according to the terms of the notice the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The plaintiff's case further is that as he reasonably requires the premises for his own use for establishing a printing pres...
Motahar Ali Vs. Sk. Abdul Malek and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal324,61CWN253
Lahiri, J. 1. This second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff against a decree of the District Judge of 24 Perganas in Title Appeal No. 335 of 1947, reversing the decree of the Munsif, First Court, at Basirhat in Title Suit No. 61 of 1946.2. The facts which are material for the purpose of this second appeal may be shortly stated as follows : One Baharali Mandal alias Bahadur Mandal had an occupancy holding in respect of an area of .47 acres in plot No. 334 of Mouza Nehal-pur at a rental of Rs. 4/8 as under the superior landlords Sk. Md. Abdulla and others. By a document, dated 16th January, 1943, Baharali sublet .40 acres of land held by him to the appellant at a rent of Rs. 4/8 as Although the Potta was executed by Baharali on 16th January, 1943, it was not registered by him, and the appellant presented this document for registration on 13th May, 1943. Upon registration being refused by the sub-registrar the appellant filed an appeal which was unsuccessful. Thereafter the appella...
James Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. St. John Demetrius and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal585,61CWN794
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is one of the rare cases in which there is no dispute as to the facts. The only dispute is as to who is entitled to a sum of money left with James Finlay and Co. Ltd., who claim no Interest in it themselves and have filed this interpleader suit. The defendants herein are the divorced wife of the deceased K. I. M. Fegan and the executor to the will of the said deceased.2. The facts taken mostly from the brief of documents and correspondence marked by common consent as Ex. A are as follows: The deceased Fegan used to be an employee of James Finlay and Co. Ltd. in' one of their tea companies. After having served a long period with them he retired from that service, went over to England where he stayed for a few months and on coming back to India joined another tea company by the name of Tukvar Tea Co., Ltd. under the management of William-son Magor & Co. Up to the year 1942 the deceased Fegan had an account with James Finlay and Co. Ltd. which was styled a private ...
Sewkissendas Bhatter and ors. Vs. Dominion of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Cal617,61CWN389
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This litigation has a long history behind it, but the history must be told in order that the point, now in dispute, may be properly appreciated. We shall, however, make every endeavour to put the story, --the story of facts, -- within as brief a compass as possible.2. In or about the year 1923, one Durgaprosad Chamaria brought a suit which was eventually registered as Title Suit No. 61 of 1923 of the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Howrah against three persons, namely, Radhaprosad Chamaria, Moti-lal Chamaria and Anardeyi Sethani, since deceased. The suit was for inter alia specific performance of a certain agreement for sale of immovable properties and it was eventually decreed on compromise on April 19, 1926. Under the compromise decree the defendants Radhaprosad and Motilal, who are plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit and Sm. Anardeyi (whose executor and legal representative Sew Kissen-das Shatter is plaintiff No. 1 here) were to pay to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›