Kolkata Court January 1960 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.
Ram Charitar Singh and anr. Vs. Nagendra Chandra Sett and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal574,64CWN223
ORDER1. Having heard the learned Advocates and having considered the materials before us, we are satisfied that a sufficient cause for extension of time and condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been made out.2. Mr. Mitter for the opposite party does not seriously dispute that it was due to the forgetfulness of the learned Advocate (Mr. Amarendra Mohan Mitra) for the appellants petitioners, in circumstances, stated in the Rule petition, namely, that the brief was accidentally mixed up with briefs of disposed of cases- and mislaid and the learned Advocate forgot all about it due to stress of circumstances, to wit, illness of his wife and sister-in-law and attendant anxiety, that the delay of six days occurred in the filing of the appeal. He however, raises the point that forgetfulness of counsel or advocate is not a ground for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in support of his contention, he has referred us to the decision of a ...
Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Mst. Kaniz Fatema
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal310,[1960(1)FLR343],(1960)IILLJ334Cal,(1960)IILLJ334Cal
Lahiri, C.J. 1. Two questions of some importance have been raised in this appeal by the employers against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation to the respondent who is the widow of one Md. Ismail. Md. Ismail was a Shed-writer of the appellant. On December 29, 1953, while Ismail was proceeding along the Circular Garden Reach Road on a bicycle from west to east at about 10.15 a.m. to join his duty in the Port Commissioners' Office at Kidderpore Dock, he was knocked down by a motor-car and sustained injuries, as a result of which he died on the following day. On September 22, 1954, the respondent who is the widow of Ismailfiled an application claiming a lump payment oE a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation. The claim was resisted by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, inasmuch as the deceased Ismail was knocked down on a public road and he sh...
Bhattacharyya Rubber Works Private Ltd. Vs. Bhattacharjee Rubber Works ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal356,64CWN695,(1960)IILLJ198Cal
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as a private limited company, and had been carrying on business as manufacturer of rubber products and/or rubber goods of diverse descriptions- The company had its factory at 174, Jessore Road, Dum Dum. Actually, the business was started by Sri Deven Bhattacharjee the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who belongs to Faridpur and some of the officers of the company are his relations. Originally, in 1956 there was only a Committee of Workers who used to represent the workmen, but since 1956 there have been two Unions functioning within the company, being the respondent No. 1 known as the 'Bhattacharjee Rubber Works Workers' Union' and the respondent No. 2 known as the 'Bhattecharjee Rubber Silpa Karmi Sangha'. These Unions appear to he rivals and there was continuous friction with each other. It is stated on behalf of the workmen belonging to the ...
P.C. Mahanti Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal403,64CWN381
Bose, J. 1. This appeal which is from a decision of Mr. Justice G.K. Mitter arises out of a suit brought by the appellant against the Union of India for damages for non-delivery of certain goods entrusted to the then Bengal and Assam Railway on or about 15-9-1944 for carriage from Calcutta (Sealdah) to Parbatipur Station. As the goods were not delivered to the appellant at the destination station, the appellant filed a suit against the Governor-General-in-Council and the Bengal and Assam Railway in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dinajpore on 20-11-1945 after giving notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on 27-8-1945. The Subordinate Judge of Dinajpore which became a part of Eastern Pakistan after the Partition of India on 14-8-1947 passed a decree in favour of the appellant for Rs. 25,000/- against the defendants after contest on 19-2-1949. While this decree remained unsatisfied, the Government of India promulgated an Ordinance known as Indian Independence Pakistan ...
Thakurdas Majhi Vs. Chand Majhi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal538
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule arises out of an application for setting aside, what in truth and substance, was an ex parte decree, passed against the applicant who is the contesting opposite party before us. The application was made under the usual provision of Order IX, Rule 13 of C. P. C. The applicant was defendant No. 3 in the suit for partition, in which the aforesaid ex parte decree was passed. The applicant's case was that no summons of the suit had been served upon him and that he came to know of the above ex parte decree within the relevant period, namely, thirty days of the date of presentation of the aforesaid application for timely presentation of the said application for purpose of limitation.2. The application was contested by the present petitioner who was the contesting defendant No. 1 in the original suit, but he had as much interest in the decree for partition as such defendant as the plaintiff herself and, accordingly, he was certainly entitled to oppose the above ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mouji Lal Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal729,64CWN475
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the defendant Union of India, is directed against a decree for damages, amounting to Rs. 21,716/-, on account of non-delivery of goods.2. Facts, as hereinafter stated, leading upto the sale of the goods, of which the delivery of the whole could not be given, are not disputed. Chewringhee Sales Bureau Ltd., (Defendant respondent No. 2) were auctioneers appointed by the Union Government and under express instructions from the Regional Commissioner (Disposals) (Ex. I(5) and I(4)) advertised for sale in public auction of 145 tons of Sal timber, as per conditions of sale contained in the notice (Ex. A). Thereafter, on 15-10-1046, the aforesaid goods were sold in auction at the workshop and store yard of Messrs. Indian Metal Corporation at 16, Belur Road, Howrah, where the goods were stacked and plaintiff Moujilal Shaw made the highest bid at Rs. 3,500/-, as the bid sheet (Ex. H) shows. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- with the fall of the hamme...
Sachindra Nath Biswas Vs. Sm. Banamala Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal575,64CWN225
Banerjee, J.1. A very short point calls for decision in this appeal.2. The appellant Sachindra and the respondent No. 1 Banamala are both Hindus and the marriage between the two was solemnised according to Hindu rites, on Falgoon 19, 1358 B. S. (1951). There was a daughter born to them, while hying a wedlock, sometime in the month of Bhadra. of the year 1360 B. S. (1953).3. Priyanath, the co-respondent, described in the memorandum of appeal as the respondent No. 2, is the husband to one of the sisters of Banamala. Alleging that Banamala was living in adultery with the said Priyanath, the appellant filed a petition, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, claiming that his marriage with Banamala be dissolved by a decree of divorce.4. The husband led evidence to prove that the wife was living in adultery with Priyanath. The respondent wife did not examine herself nor did she examine any witness to prove her innocence. The co-respondent Priyanath did not contest. On considerat...
T. Somraju Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal297,[1961(3)FLR5],(1961)IILLJ467Cal
Lahiri, C.J.1. The appellant, T. Somraju, was an employee of the Eastern (now South Eastern) Railway and on the relevant date he was employed as a Khalasi in the I. O. W. Workshop at Kharida in Kharagpur. On July 17, 1953, while he was on duty as a Khalasi, he was returning to the factory at about 12-30 p.m. after taking his tiffin, he was pushed by a railway engine while crossing the railway lines near the factory. As a result of this accident, the appellant received injuries on his legs, his left-hand elbow joint and chest. He filed an application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming a lump payment of Rs. 4,200/-. The application by the appellant was opposed by the railway on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties and after holding a local inspection dismissed the appellant's claim and against the order...
Jagadish Chandra Bhadra Vs. Budge Budge Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1960
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ549Cal
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows. The petitioner was appointed by the commissioners of Budge Badge Municipality, as secretary to the said municipality. His scale of pay was in excess of Rs. 200 per month and the appointment was duly confirmed by the Government of West Bengal, under the provisions of Section 66(2), proviso (ii), of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The appointment was made in December 1950 on a probation for six months. After the expiry of the probationary period, the commissioners at a special meeting held on 17 August 1951 purported not to confirm the petitioner, and further purported to dispense with his service, with effect from 20 August 1951 on the ground that his service was considered as unsatisfactory. The matter then went up to Government which gave a ruling that the proceedings held on 17 August 1951 was contrary to law and the resolution was annulled and the commissioners were directed to rei...
Mohammed Felumeah Vs. S. Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Cal582,64CWN861
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of our learned brother Sinha, J., modifying an ad interim injunction, issued by Bose, J., when issuing a Rule Nisi (Civil Rule 858 of 1959) for certain writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, etc., specified therein. The appellant before us was the petitioner in the aforesaid Rule and he obtained the same calling upon the respondents to show cause why the writs aforesaid should not issue and pending the hearing of the Rule, he also obtained an ad interim injunction, restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 from, inter alia, granting any licence to respondent No. 5 (for his cinema) on C. S. plot No. 5971, pending the disposal of the Rule.2. To the aforesaid Rule affidavits-in-opposition were filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and respondent No. 4 on May 23 and June 4, 1959, respectively, and two affidavits-in-reply were also filed by and/or on behalf of the appellant on June 29, and July 1, 1959.3. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »