Kolkata Court August 1959 Judgments

Motilal Chamaria Vs. Lal Chand Dugar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1960Cal6,65CWN55

Bose, J.1. This application for selling aside an award has been referred under Chapter V, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules of this Court for decision by a Special Bench.2. The only questions which arise for determination in this case are whether the claim of the respondent was barred by limitation on the date of the commencement of the arbitration, and if so whether the arbitrators misconducted the proceedings by entertaining such a claim.3. It appears that by a contract concluded by the exchange of a Bought note and a Sold note both dated 12-3-1951 the petitioner agreed to sell to the respondent and !he respondent agreed to buy from the petitioner 20000 pieces of D. W. Flour bags of certain specifications contained in the said Notes at Rs. 237/- per 100 bags F. O. R. Katihar -- delivery R/R 15-4-1951.4. The contract contains an arbitration clause which may be set out hereunder:'All matters, questions, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/ or in con...

S.M. Nawab Ariff Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1960Cal159,64CWN1

K.C. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The question that arises for decision in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been referred to this Bench under Chapter V of the Original Side Rules is whether Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is void under Article 13 of the Constitution of India because of inconsistency with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It appears a distress warrant was issued against the petitioner purporting to be under Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act for realisation of a sum of money said to be due on account of coasolidated rate assessed for premises No. 3, Amratola Lane. It was alleged in the application that before the distress warrant was actually issued, no notice of demand as required under Section 236 of the Calcutta Municipal Act had been served on the petitioner. It was further urged that Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 was ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Article 14 of the C...

Maharaja Probirendra Mohun Tagore Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1959Cal767

Lahiri, J.1. This suit has been placed before the Special Bench under a report of P. B. Mukharji J. under Chapter V, Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules as it involves many important questions of far reaching consequence.2. The plaintiff Maharaja Probirendra Mohan Tagore asks for a declaration that his right, title and interest in the settled estate created under a deed of family settlement dated November 18, 1904 under the Bengal Settled Estates Act, 1904 (Bengal Act III of 1904), have not been affected by notification No. 310 L.R./ZAM dated the 30th October, 1952, issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950) and for a further declaration that the said notification is invalid and inoperative and does not bind the plaintiff and for certain other incidental relicts.3. The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint is that on the 18th November, 1906, his paternal grandfather Sir...

Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan General Electrical Corp ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1960Cal637,64CWN458

Bachawat, J.1. The appeal No. 129 of 1958 is from an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The appeal Mo. 130 of 1958 is from an order confirming reduction of capital. Both these orders were passed by Bose, J. The two appeals have been heard together. This judgment is intended to cover both the appeals.2. The respondent company is a public company limited by shares. It was incorporated in 1945 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The appellant holds 2000 preference shares in the share capital of the company. The authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000/- divided into 3,75,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each, 10,000 5 per cent cumulative participating preference shares of Rs. 100/- each and 50,000 deferred shares of Rs. 5/- each. The memorandum of the company states that shares have the rights, privileges and conditions attached thereto as are provided by the regulations of the company for the time being with pow...

A.K. Raha (Engineers) Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1961Cal166

P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit by a contractor for works done. The plaintiff was employed for the construction of a broad gauge tunnel on the Bhakra Nangal Canal Railways belonging to the defendant. On. 1-3-1949, the work was completed. In the course of work, the plaintiff from time to time submitted running bills and received some payments. It is alleged that improper deductions amounting to Rs. 31.949/12/- were made from the running bills. The final bill submitted after construction works were completed is for Rs. 3,61,918/11/-. In terms of the contract the plaintiff had to furnish a security deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. The present suit has been instituted for the recovery of the said three sums, alternatively for an enquiry as to the amount due and payable to the plaintiff. The suit has been instituted after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the averment that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is pleaded that notice unde...

Bhaskar Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Nilmoni Nath

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1962Cal285

Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an unfortunate litigation between a driver of motor cars and trucks and his employers having its foundation on a certificate of character given by one of the employers to which I shall refer later. The driver is the respondent in this appeal, and he was the plaintiff in the Trial Court. The employers Bhaskar Mukherjee and his son Prabir Mukherjee, who are appellants in this appeal were defendants in the Trial Court. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was a simple one. He prayed for recovering a sum of Rs. 1050/-from the defendants on the allegation that ha had been employed by them on a salary of Rs. 125/-per month, and salary for seven months from January, 1950, to July, 1950, remained due. The plaintiffs case was that he was entitled to recover this amount and also the salary for the month of August, 1950, as no notice of discharge was given to the plaintiff. A sum of Rs. 50/- was also claimed as compensation for loss of dress and beddings in the course of...

Tarini Kumar Panday Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1960Cal318

N.K. Sen, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Judge, City Sessions Court with the aid of a jury under Sections 120B/ 466/420, I.P.C. and under Section 466 for forging two documents and also under Section 420 I.P.C. on two counts. He was unanimously found guilty under all the charges and the learned Judge agreeing with and accepting the said verdict sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on each charge to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story was that the appellant who is a clerk in the Eastern Railway Office at Kailaghat Street used to reside at Howrah where he was acting as private tutor to the children of the family of Radhesyam Tekriwalla and P.W. 13 Satyanarain Tekriwalla who were residing at Howrah but carrying on business at 203/1 Harrison Road, Calcutta. One Bilas Rai Lundia, P.W. 8 is a partner of the Tekriwallas and he also resided at Howrah and looked after the affairs of the Tekriwallas at 203/1 Harrison Road. Towards the end of May, 1955 the appellant told ...

Tarini Kumar Pandey Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

N.K. Sen, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Judge, City Sessions Court with the aid of a jury Under Sections 120B/ 466/420, I.P.C, and Under Section 466 for forging two documents and also Under Section 420 IPC on two counts. He was unanimously found guilty under all the charges and the learned Judge agreeing with and accepting the said verdict sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on each charge to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story was that the appellant who is a clerk in the Eastern Railway Office at Kailaghat Street used to reside at Howrah where he was acting as private tutor to the children of the family of Radhesyam Tekriwalla and P.W. 13 Satya-narain Tekriwalla who were residing at Howrah but carrying on business at 203/1 Harrison Road, Calcutta, One Bilas Rai Lundia, P.W. 8 is a partner of the Tekriwallas and he also resided at Howrah and looked after the affairs of the Tekriwallas at 203/1 Harrison Road. Towards the end of May, 1955 the appellant told Bil...

Jhumarmull Sethia Vs. Champalal Bothra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1960Cal61,63CWN832

B.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The question that calls for decision in this Rule is whether a petition and an accompanying Vokalatnama, initially signed by a person not legally authorised to sign for the defendant, can be validated by the signature of the defendant himself at a later stage of the proceeding and when so signed can relate back to the date of the presentation of the petition. 2. Admittedly there was an ex parte decree passed against the defendant opposite party, as far back as March 12, 1952. Over six years after the passing of the ex parte decree, the defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the ex parte decree be set aside. There was the usual pleading that the defendant was not aware of the filing of the suit and that summons had not been served on him and therefore he could not contest the suit. The petition and the Vokalatnama, which was filed along with the petition, were not signed by the defendant himself but by his c...