Kolkata Court September 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.
Manik Chand Mondal and anr. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Cal420,64CWN80
Das Gupta, J.1. The real question in this case is whether the learned Munsiff before whom the present petitioners instituted the suit for ejectment against the opposite parties was right in holding that the plaintiffs were liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sum of Rs. 12,000/-. It appears that after his direction to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court-fees the plaintiffs did not pay the same and he ordered the plaint to be rejected. The plaintiff's appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned Judge. The plaintiffs' case in the plaint is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were residing with the leave and licence of the plaintiffs in the suit premises along with plaintiffs and their mother, that this licence has been revoked by the plaintiffs but the defendants were still continuing to occupy the said premises. As originally framed, the plaintiffs' prayer in the plaint was for a declaration of their title to the land and for delivery of khas possession to the plaintiffs on evi...
R.K. Kanodia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Representing Eastern and Norther ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal701,63CWN757
Das Gupta, J.1. The only question raised for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit brought by the appellant for recovery of a sum of money as compensation for non-delivery of a consignment of Iron or Steel Files consigned at first from Karachi to Ladnum station and thereafter rebooked from Ladnum to Howrah Station was barred by limitation. The courts below found that the appellant would have been entitled to a decree for the amount claimed except for the fact that notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act had not been properly served and also because the suit was barred by limitation. In that view, the suit was dismissed by the trial court and that dismissal was upheld by the court of appeal below,2. Before us Mr. Bose who appeared for the respondent Union of India seated that he would not press the objection under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act but would contend that the courts below were right in their conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.3. It...
Re Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Vs. First Labour Court West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal265,64CWN37,(1959)ILLJ600Cal
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The applicant before me is Messrs, Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its head office situated in Madras. It has a small branch office in Calcutta. At the branch office in Calcutta, there were four workmen including the respondent No. 4, Ram Deo Dubey. The company dismissed the respondent No. 4 from its service on the 17th day of September, 1956. By an order dated 29-10-1957, the Government of West Bengal referred an alleged industrial dispute to the adjudication of the First Labour Court, Calcutta. The relevant part of the order of reference is as follows :'Whereas an. industrial dispute exists between Messrs. Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., 7 Lyons Range, Calcutta and one of their workmen Sri Ram Deo Dubey represented by the Calcutta Lower Grade Employees' Union, 249 Bowbazar Street, Calcutta relating to the under-mentioned issues ..... the Governor is pleased hereby to refer the said dispute...
Ali Altaf HossaIn and ors. Vs. Golam Rahaman Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal525,1959CriLJ971
ORDERDebabrata Mookerjee, J. 1. These three petitioners have been convicted by a Magistrate of the first class at Seram-pore under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner Ali Altaf Hossain has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 80/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Each of the other two petitioners has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for thirty days. 2. The case for the prosecution briefly was that the complainant had worked as a labourer under Ali Altaf Hossain some time prior to 3-10-1957. On the last mentioned date the complainant approached petitioner Ali Altaf Hossain to ask for his dues when Ali Altaf got annoyed and beat up the complainant. The other two petitioners also joined in the assault. The injuries which were suffered as a result of the assault were examined by a Doctor at Serampore on the day following. The complaint out of which this Rule arises was instituted in Court on 10-10-1957. 3...
Myrurgia Societe Anonyme Vs. V.R. Subramanyam and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal116
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order and decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks made on the 5th May, 1954, refusing to register the applicant's mark, 'Maja', on the objection of the opponent's who claimed the mark 'Raja'.2. In the application for registration, the applicant applied for registering the trade mark, 'Maja', in class 3 of the goods. It was an application to register the word 'Maja', simpliciter without any design associated with it. The opposition stated the grounds where it was not alleged that the applicant had not used the word 'Maja', without any associated design.3. The parties adduced evidence before the Registrar on affidavits, on the basis of these allegations in the application, opposition and counter-statements.4. The learned Deputy Registrar in his decision found that on the evidence adduced it was apparent that the mark sought for registration was not the mark that was claimed in the evidence as used and came to the conclusion that it ...
Motilal Kejriwal Vs. Indian Overseas Airlines Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal117,[1960]30CompCas390(Cal)
R.S. Bachawat, J. 1. The plaintiff Motilal Kejriwal is an unsecured creditor of the defendant No. 1, Indian Overseas Airlines Ltd. Previously, the plaintiff had instituted against the defendant No. 1 another suit, being Suit No. 4676 of 1950 for the recovery of his dues. In that suit, the plaintiff obtained an order of appointment of the Official Receiver as Receiver of the Dakota aircraft No. VT-AZV on the allegation that the aircraft belonged to defendant No. 1 absolutely. The Official Receiver took possession of the aircraft on or about 24-12-1950. On 2-2-1951, the defendant No. 2, Messrs. Air Friends, made an application in that suit for its examination pro interesse suo & for an order discharging the receiver on the allegation that the aircraft belonged to defendant No. 2 and that neither defendant No. 1 nor anybody else had any interest in the aircraft. In its petition the defendant No. 2 referred to and relied upon two agreements dated 16-7-1950 and also claimed that the aircraf...
Associated Pictures Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal179,63CWN79,[1959]37ITR487(Cal)
Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : On 23-2-1951 the petitioner obtained a decree against respondent No. 3, Messrs. Kali Films Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 19,900/- in suit No. 4122 of 1950 in the Original Side of this Court with interests and costs. On or about 15-11-1951, the said decree was transferred to the Alipore Court. It ultimately came to be allotted to the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge for execution. In execution, certain movables and machinery belonging to the judgment-debtor, respondent No. 3, were attached. On or about 15-1-1952, the petitioner obtained leave of the High Court for attaching certain goody in the possession of the Official Receiver. The attachment was effected on 21-1-1952, So far as the execution case was concerned, there were various proceedings. Claims were field and investigated, as also the applications made by the judgment-debtor were considered. Finally, upon application of the petitioner, the attached goods were sold throu...
Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal607,64CWN106,(1960)ILLJ460Cal
K.C. Das gupta, J.1. The respondent Surendra Nath Ghose was anemployee of the appellant company for many yearssince 1929. He brought this suit on an avermentthat sometime after he was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had committed theft of certain brass bushes and he submitted his explanation,the company did not allow him to resume his duties.His case is that no enquiry was made in the matterand that no formal order of suspension or dismissalwas passed. He asked for a declaration that he hadnot been dismissed, that his service under the defendant company was still continuing that the actionof the defendant company in verbally suspendinghim was arbitrary, illegal, wrongful and mala fideand for a permanent injunction against the companyrestraining it from interfering with the plaintiff's resuming his duties.2. The main defence of the company was that the plaintiff was found guilty of gross misconduct and the Manager was satisfied of his guilt and was competent to dismiss the p...
Ratanlal Majumdar Vs. Alfred Ernest Young
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Cal64,1959CriLJ37,63CWN78
J.P. Mitter, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar (North) Midnapore Under Section . 138 of the Indian Railways Act. The petitioner was a tea-stall contractor at Kolaghat Railway Station. By a notice dated the 9th March, 1955, the Railway administration purported to terminate the contract between the parties and asked the petitioner by that notice to quit the stall in question on the 7th July, 1955. The petitioner refused to obey the notice, whereupon the Railway administration moved the Sub-divisional Magistrate for an order under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act.2. Two points have been urged before us. The first point is that the notice to quit Under Section 138 should be given only after a valid discharge of the Railway servant concerned. According to the petitioner, there was no valid termination of his contract. In our view, the question of the validity of the discharge is beside the point. If the petitioner felt th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›