Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal229,65CWN1
Banerjee, J. 1. This is a reference to a Special Division Bench,under the second proviso to Rule 1 Ch. II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particularquestion of law referred for determination by theSpecial Bench is:'What is the proper valuation of a suit for ejectment of a licensee upon revocation or termination of his licence for purposes of (1) Court-fees and (2) jurisdiction? Is there any difference in the matter between a case of revocation of licence and a case of termination as distinguished from revocation of licence?'2. Facts, in so far as they are material for determination of this reference, lie within a short compass and are hereinbelow stated.3. The plaintiffs, who are the petitioners, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant opposite party, whom they described as a licensee, on the ground that the licence in favour of the defendant had been revoked. There were also certain other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, for example, mesne profits, but with those othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal353,64CWN1081
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. Three questions require answer in this Reference. They are, to quote them from what maybe called the order of reference, in the following terms:'(i) Whether, apart from statute, there may be suspension of limitation or extension of prescribed periods of limitation; (ii) whether, in the above respect, cases coming under the Bengal Tenancy Act, stand on any special or different footing by reason of Section 185 of the said Act, which makes, inter alia, Section 9 of the Indian Limitation Act inapplicable to suits, appeals and applications, specified in Schedule III, annexed to the Bengal Tenancy Act; and (iii) whether the case of Midnapore Zemindary Co., Ltd. v. Naba Kumar Singh, AIR 1950 Cal 298, was rightly decided' and, in answering them, we have only to add that, as they arose before the referring Bench in relation to a suit, our answers would proceed on that footing and would comprehend no greater scope. For purposes of this reference, therefore, the questions r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal456
P.C. Mallick, J.1. Two applications have been made in respect to the same award dated 19th/20th November 1958 made by Mr. H. Banerjee, I. C. S. Mr. Banerjee was appointed arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in respect to a contractor's claim for construction of roads. One application is by the contractor L. M. Das for an order to remit the award for adjudication of some of the claims which have not been adjudicated. The learned arbitrator has left out these claims on the ground that in his opinion he had no jurisdiction to deal with the said claims. The other application is by the Government to set aside the award in respect to other claims allowed by the learned arbitrator or in the alternative for correction or modification of the award. Both the applications though heard separately one after the other are being disposed of by this judgment.2. There were three contracts as evidenced by acceptance by the Government of West Bengal of three tenders submitted by the contractor being Te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1962]44ITR386(Cal)
SELLERS L.J. - This is an appeal from a decision of Salmon J. who (affirming the master) made an order on the defendant to give particulars of paragraph 2 of the amended defence. In my view, the appeal is misconceived and the judge came to a right conclusion on this matter.We have listened to the argument of Mr. Lewis and it seems to me that, if we were to grant the appeal, he would be in a greater difficulty then perhaps he has appreciated. [His Lordship stated the facts as to the pleadings set out above, and continued :] Counsel has referred us to several authorities but I do not think it is necessary to deal with them fully. One can simply take this case as a claim for penalties. It is not a criminal proceeding. The form of the pleading is of the usual kind and normal so far as particulars are required of the averments in the pleading. I support the judge entirely in thinking that when the defendants pleads in the way I have read in paragraph 2 of the defence he is of necessity and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal315,64CWN950,[1960(1)FLR384],(1960)IILLJ189Cal,(1960)IILLJ189Cal
Bachawat, J.1. This appeal and cross-objection arise out of an order-passed by Sinha, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution. The litigation relates to an industrial dispute between Messrs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co Limited and their workmen.2. The principal business of Messrs. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) is that of managing agents of other limited companies. The associated companies or concerns carry on business as manufacturers and sellers of jute textiles, cotton textiles and tea. The company as also the associated concerns have their registered and principal offices at premises No. 21 Strand Road in the town of Calcutta. The company maintains a clerical and subordinate staff at its office at No. 21 Strand Road.3. The workmen of the company claimed payment of bonus for the year 1955 on the ground that the company made huge profits in 1955. This claim-was resisted by the company. An industrial dispute accordingly arose between the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal40,[1962(5)FLR71],(1962)IILLJ537Cal
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On the 26th June, 1959 the petitioner was employed as a clerk in the General Branch of the Eastern Railway at Lillooah, in the office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, who was his appointing authority. It appears that shortly before that date, a report was received from the vigilance officer and there was a 'fact finding enquiry'. The allegation was shortly as follows: Some persons had secured blank pass application forms for the issue of Railway Passes. These blank pass applications were filled up with a bogus name and a false rubber stamp was put thereon, together with a forged signature of a clerk in the D. C. O. S.'s office, and they were passed on to the petitioner, who was a clerk in the Pass section. On the strength of this, passes were issued, which were fraudulently utilised. It appears that there was a very exhaustive enquiry at which witnesses were examined. On 26-6-58 the Personal Assistant to the Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal163
Sankar Prosad Mitra, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff states that at the material time both the defendants had Branch Offices at Rangoon. The plaintiff was a constituent of the defendant Indian Bank Ltd. in Calcutta which was acting as the plaintiff's bankers and agents and was in-charge and control of three consignments of Hosiery goods belonging to the plaintiff. The goods were lying in Rangoon. The documents relating thereto were in the custody of the defendant bank. The goods consisted of 34 cases shipped per s.s. Hupeh; 16 cases shipped per s. s. Taksand and 2 cases shipped per s. s. Hong-peng.2. On and prior to the 3rd January, 1942 the plaintiff instructed the defendant bank in Calcutta, to arrange for the immediate reshipment of the goods, to Calcutta and if re-shipment was not possible to arrange for insurance and storage of the goods- The defendant bank informed the plaintiff that instructions to the said effect had been sent by them to their Rangoon Office on the 3rd January,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal45,65CWN23,(1961)ILLJ59Cal
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is an application by the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association against (1) the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation of India with his office at Hindusthan Building, Calcutta, (2) the Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd. and (3) the Chairman, Life Insurance Coporation of India, Bombay, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel the basic pay actually drawn on August 31, 1956 by persons who were formerly employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited and to give effect to their basic pay in accordance with law for the purpose For fitting in with the new scale adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for other reliefs. The petitioner has no personal interest in the matter and is seeking to get redress for the ex-employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited. 2 to 12. (After stating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal95
Lahiri, C.J.1. Although we have heard very interesting arguments on the question whether the business of a Chartered Accountant is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, we find it impossible to decide that question at the present stage. The first two appellants are two of the employees of a firm of Chartered Accountants named Messrs. Price Waterhouse Peat and Co., and the third appellant is a discharged employee of that firm. The firm of Messrs. Price Waterhouse Peat and Co. represented by Respondents 1, 2 and 3 will be hereinafter described as the firm. A dispute having arisen with regard to the claim for bonus made by the first two appellants and the discharge of the third appellant the Employees' Association of the firm took up the dispute as a collective dispute and at its instance the Government of the State of West Bengal by an order dated July 1, 1955referred the following issues to the First IndustrialTribunal for adjudication:1. Whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal98,1961CriLJ242,65CWN712
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On the 25th October, 1958 one of the Customs officers at Dum Dum Airport, while examining a wooden case declared to contain rosogolla, achar, papar and dried vegetables under cover of Shipping Bill No. A. E. F. No. 761 dated 18-10-58 and consignment Note No. 085/SR 1082755 to be shipped to Hongkong per Swiss Air, detected Rs. 51,000/- in Indian Currency Notes of hundred rupees denomination concealed in a specially made cavity on the battens nailed to the inner sides of the case.2. In the shipping bill, the consignor was shown to be one Ramghawan Singh, Karnani Mansions, Park Street, Calcutta, and the consignee was shown to be one Iswarlal, 41, Wyndh am Street, Hongkong.It was found from the shipping bill that the case in question was originally to be shipped per M/s Thai Airways Co., Ltd., but it was ultimately booked with the Swiss Air. Enquiries revealed that no person by the name of Kamghawan Singh ever lived or wa...
Tag this Judgment!