Kolkata Court February 1958 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.
Achhiman Bibi Vs. Abdur Rahim Naskar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal437
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate decree passed in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.2. One Rahamatulla Naskar had two sons, Kamaruddi and Pijoruddi. On a partition between the two brothers, Pijoruddi got the properties now in dispute.3. Pijoruddi had two sons, Taimuddi and Nasaruddi and a daughter Achhiman Bibi. Nasaruddi died during the life time of his father leaving a widow Meherjan and a son Abdur Rahim Naskar. Pijoruddi died in 1338 B. S.4. Abdur Rahim Naskar is the plaintiff respondent in the present appeal.5. At one time Abdur Rahim Naskar set up a story that in or about 1332 B. S. Pijoruddi had made an oral Heba in respect of six annas share of his property in favour of him (Abdur Rahim Naskar), the motive for the Heba being love and affection for Abdur Rahim, who became disentitled to inherit Pijoruddi on account of the death of his father during Pijo-ruddi's life time. Six years after the Heba Pijoruddi died, and the pl...
Mcleod and Co. Vs. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal273
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is McLeod and Co, Ltd. The respondents are the Sixth Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal andthe discharged employee K. P. Sanyal. The object of complaint is the award made by such Industrial Tribunal dated the 18th June, 1957, whereby Respondent K. P. Sanyal was held to be a clerk and workman of the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the termination of Sanyal's services without permission of the Tribunal was a clear contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore directed reinstatement of Sanyal in the post he was holding at the date of his discharge and payment of all his wages up to the date of reinstatement within 15 days of the publication of the award in the Calcutta Gazette. 2. Two objections have been urged against the award on behalf of the applicant. The first is that Sanyal was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The secon...
Gosta Behari Ghose Vs. Panchanon Jeley and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal601
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law, namely, whether an underraiyat who holds his land under a lease for a limited term and against whom a suit for ejectment brought by his landlord on the expiry of the term has been dismissed on the ground of special limitation, as provided in Article 1(a) of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, continues to possess his land as a tenant or as a trespasser without any right.2. The allegation of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was briefly the following:3. Defendant No. 1 of the Trial Court, Aghore Chandra Jeley, took an under-raiyati lease from one Akshoy Kumar Ghose, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellant for a term of nine years from 1342 to 1350 B.S. at an annual rent of Rs. 18/-. A kabuliayat was executed on 21st Pous, 1342 B. S. by Aghore's son Panchanon Jeley who is defendant No. 2 in the Trial Court. The case of the plaintiff was that the two defendants did not give up possession of their la...
Md. Mahboob and anr. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal63
Bhattacharya, J.1. These four petitions in revision are heard together for the sate of convenience. In two cases, Rules were obtained by the accused and in the other two Rules were granted to the complainant regarding enhancement of sentence. They relate to two cases for infringement of trade mark held by Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. in respect or a soap known as 'Sunlight' manufactured by them. The accused petitioners, it was alleged inter alia, were making the soap 'Sunright' with a false trade mark and using wrappers also with false trade mark thereon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the soaps had connection with the firm Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. although they did not have any such connection at all.2. The case against the accused and the objections raised will be discussed hereafter.3. The right of Lever Brothers to the trade mark (Sunlight) and the wrappers of Sunlight is unquestionable.4. It was contended by the learned Advocates appeari...
Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to the Govt. of West Bengal V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal119
Bhattacharya, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by Presidency Magistrate.2. The accused was charged under Sections 482, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act inter alia for infringement of trade mark rights of Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd., in respect of soap known as 'Rexona'.3. The learned Magistrate held that the word 'Rexona' was registered under the Trade Marks Act. A label with certain marks shown in the certificate of registration (Ext. 13) was also found to have been protected by registration, But the Magistrate held that Lever Brothers (India) Ltd., had no trade mark right in respect of the wrappers of 'Rexona'.4. The marks in the label as shown in Ext. 13 are distinctly different from those in the wrappers of 'Rexona'. There, is no indication on the wrappers themselves that 'Rexona' was the property of Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. A purchaser would not open ...
Tincori Oil Mill Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal283
ORDERSinha, J.1. The petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, and are manufacturers of mustard oil. The firm consists of six partners. There is another oil mill named Tinkari Sadbukhan and Sons, also in the city of Calcutta. That firm is also a registered partnership, owned by all the six partners above mentioned, of the petitioner firm. Under the Finance Act, 1956 a duty of Central Excise was imposed upon mustard oil at the rate of Rs. 70/- per ton. On 1st March, 1956 a notification, being Notification No. CER/8(5)/56 dated 1st March, 1956 was issued by the Government of India, terms whereof are as follows:'S.R.O. 498--In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, as in force in India, and as applied to the State of Pondicherry, the Central Government hereby exempts from the duty leviable thereon-- (i) the first 125 tons of Vegetable Non-Essential Oils cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption on or after the first day...
Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to the Government of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: 1960CriLJ222
ORDERBhattacharya, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by Presidency Magistrate.2. The accused was charged Under Sections 482, 485 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code and also Under Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act inter alia for infringement of trade mark rights of Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd., in respect of soap known as 'Rexona'.3. The learned Magistrate held that the word 'Rexona' was registered under the Trade Marks Act. A label with certain marks shown In the certificate of registration (Ext. 13) was also found to s, have been protected by registration. But the Magistrate held that Lever Brothers (India) Ltd., had no trade mark right in respect of the wrappers of 'Rexona'.4. The marks in the label as shown in Ext. 13 are distinctly different from those in the wrappers of 'Rexona'. There is no indication on the wrappers themselves that 'Rexona' was the property of Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. A purchaser would not...
Mahboob and anr. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1958
Reported in: 1960CriLJ220
ORDERB.K. Bhattacharya, J.1. These four petitions in revision are heard together for the sake of convenience. In two cases Rules were obtained by the accused and in the other two Rules were granted to the complainant regarding enhancement of sentence. They relate to two oases for infringement of trade mark held by Messrs. Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. in respect of a soap known as 'Sunlight' manufactured by them. The accused petitioners, it was alleged inter alia, were making the soap 'Sunlight' with a false trade mark and using wrappers also with false trade mark thereon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the soaps had connection with the firm Lever Brothers (India) Ltd. although they did not have any such connection at all.2. The case against the accused and the objections raised will be discussed hereafter.3. The right of Lever Brothers to the trade mark (Sunlight) and the wrappers of Sunlight is unquestionable.4. It was contended by the learned Advocate...
Anil Nath De Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal407
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application by Anil Nath De for a writ of mandamus or certiorari in respect of an order of the Assistant Collector of Excise, dated the 16th April, 1956 and an order of the Collector of Central Excise, dated the 7th May, 1956. 2. The petitioner was a temporary Upper Division Clerk. He was transferred to Kalimpong in June 1949 in the normal course. Ha applied thereupon for leave on the ground of illness. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalimpong directed him to appear before the Staff Surgeon for medical examination. On examination the petitioner was found fit to carry out the duties and to join the duties on the 11th July 1949. But instead of joining his duties the petitioner applied on the 12th July, 1949 for an extension of leave for three more weeks. He was again medically examined by a Staff Surgeon on the 2nd December, 1949, when this time the Staff Surgeon found him unfit to resume his duties. It was however found on the scrutiny of...
Nalini Ranjan Guha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Cal624
P. Chakravartti, C.J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the arbitrator made his award within the time extended to him by the Court or whether, by making it after the expiry of such time, he made himself guilty of misconduct. The argument before us turned solely on that single question. Mr. Chaudhuri, who appeared for the appellant, did mention another count of misconduct without, however, pressing it. About that item of alleged misconduct, I shall have to say something later.2. As regards the point actually pressed before us, the facts are as follows. On 20-11-1950, the appellant, Nalini Ranjan Guha, instituted a suit against the Union of India on the Original Side of this Court for the recovery of a certain sum of money, claimed as due to him on account of some work done. After the suit had made some progress, the Union of India made an application on 18-1-1951 for a stay of the suit on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. Subseq...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »