Kolkata Court September 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.
indrapuri Studio Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insuran ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal381,(1961)IILLJ306Cal
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. On April 2, 1957, the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Calcutta, applied before the Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal, at Calcutta, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,128/- as 'employees' contribution' from opposite party No. 1, Messrs. Indrapuri Studio Private Ltd., and opposite party No. 2, the 'principal employer', he being the Manager of the aforesaid Company. The application was made under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the claim was for the period August 14, 1955 to December 31, 1956. 2. The application was contested by both the respondents opposite parties whose principal objections were: 1. That the company opposite party No. 1 was not a 'factory' and, accordingly, the Act had no application to the case, and the opposite parties had no liability thereunder; 2. That the opposite parties had no liability under the Act for the 'employees' contribution' and, in any event, they, not having deduct...
Blackwoods India Ltd. Vs. First Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ552Cal
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against an award and the connected proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner, Blackwooda India Ltd., seeks to have the aforesaid award and proceeding quashed by an appropriate writ of certiorari and it seeke further, the issue of appropriate writs of mandamus and prohibition, commanding the opposite parties to forbear and refrain from enforcing and giving effect to the said award or taking steps in that behalf and also prohibiting them from doing the same. The rule arose under the following circumstances.2. By a notice, dated 8 May 1957, the petitioner company purported to close the Underwood Typewriters and O.E. Service Station (Eastern Division), which was described therein as an industry, on economic grounds and to terminate the services of all workers thereof with effect from the said date, namely, 8 May 1957. This termination of service was, according to the above notice, due to the aforesaid closure of the 'indus...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arjun Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ454Cal
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. In this rule, obtained by the Eastern Railway Administration, represented by the Union of India, the only point that arises is whether the learned Judge, Second Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, acting as the appropriate appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act, was justified in setting aside the order of the 'authority' under the said Act, rejecting the opposite party's application, claiming certain wages from the petitioner railway, and remanding the case to the said 'authority' for trial on merit.2. The rule was issued under the following circumstances:On 2 February 1959, the opposite party applied before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal, claiming Rs. 38,826-4-0 as 'delayed wages' against, in 'particular, the present petitioner. In the said application, the opposite party stated, inter alia,-- (a) that he was a permanent employee under the petitioner (the then East Indian Railway) in the year 1948, working as Claims Inspe...
R. Ray Vs. V.G. Dalvi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1963Cal380,65CWN191,[1962(5)FLR154]
Bachawat, J.1. This Reference arises out of a dispute between an un-incorporated association, named the All India Postal Employees' Union, having its head quarters at Delhi and its West Bengal Circle Branch. The plaintiff appellant claims to be a member as also a secretary of the West Bengal Circle Branch. The defendant No. 1 is the General Secretary and the defendant No. 2 is the Deputy General Secretary of the All India Postal Employees' Union head quarters. These defendants do not reside, carry on business or personally work for gain in the city of Calcutta. The plaintiff instituted a representative suit in the City Civil Court for a declaration that a certain order of suspension of the West Bengal Circle Branch passed by the defendant No. 1 on the 24th June, 1958, is illegal, void and liable to be set aside and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the order. The plaintiff contended that part of the cause of action for the suit arose on the servi...
Minor Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Khandubala Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal336,65CWN171
Bachawat, J.1 .One Bholanath Dutta and his wife, Chintamani Dassi, jointly executed a mortgage of the disputed plot of land, known as Nimasol Nishkar, as also of other plots of land in favour of one Chand Keyot. On the death of Chand Keyot, his three sons, Gangadhar, Jamuna and Padma instituted a suit against both Bholanath and Chintamani and obtained a final decree for sale of all the mortgaged properties. On July 19, 1933, the decree-holders put the final decree into execution and commenced Title Execution Case No. 1526 of 1933 against both Bholanath and Chintamani. The sale proclamation was issued on October 25, 1933 and published on November 13, 1933. Chintamani died on November 27, 1933. All the mortgaged properties were sold at the Court sale on December 22, 1933 and purchased by the three decree-holders. The sale was confirmed on May 1, 1937. Chintamani was the sole owner of the disputed plot of land. She left behind her three sons as heirs and legal representatives. In spite of...
Shib Krishna Das Vs. Panchanan Ganguly and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal346,65CWN576
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This Reference raises the question of the true interpretation of Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 66 of 1959 of the Indian Parliament. The point in controversy between the parties is whether in showing cause in pursuance of a notice issued under Order 44, Rule 1, the Respondent is entitled not only to challenge the pauperism of the applicant for leave to appeal as a pauper, but also to show under the proviso to Rule 1 that the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the decree is neither contrary to law not to any usage having force of law nor is otherwise erroneous or unjust. 2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are these; On March 22, 1955, the petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal as a pauper. On March 29, 1955, the Division Bench before which the petition was presented passed the following order:'Let the application be sent down to the court below for enquiry into the allege...
Burdwan Real Properties Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lal Behari Kapuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal398,65CWN259
Bachawat, J.1. The purpose of the letting does not decide whether the property let is premises within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The letting may be for residential or for non-residential purposes. In this case the property let is said to be a holding consisting of a building, c.i. sheds, stalls, pavements, vacant space, lanes and bye-lanes commonly known as Barabazar Vegetable and Fish Market within the Burdwan Municipality, measuring 12 cottas 7 chittaks. Such a property may well be premises within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The test is--is the property a building or part of a building or a hut or part of a hut let separately including the grounds and out-houses appertaining thereto? If the property let is a property of that description, the tact that it is let for being used as a market, will not prevent the property being premises within the meaning of the Act. The Act applies to the letting of premises irrespective of the...
S.N. Bhattacharjee (Landlord) Dead and in His Place M.M. Chakravarti O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal432,65CWN315
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. These two references raise and involve the same point or points of law, though, in the relative referring orders, they have been put in different language. The difference, however, is only in form; in substance, the points are the same. The two references have arisen on account of conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court, one in the case of Birendra Nath Basak v. Rabindra Nath Mitra, 93 Cal LJ 23 and the other in the latter case of Indra Kumar Kamani v. Sundardas Thackersey and Bros., : AIR1953Cal570 which was decided without noticing the aforesaid earlier decision. Both the referring orders agree in disagreeing with the above Bench decision in : AIR1953Cal570 (Supra), but, while the learned referring Judges (Das Gupta and Guha JJ.) in F. B. Ref. No. 1 of 1957, have expressed their tentative disagreement also with the other decision, namely, 93 Cal LJ 23 (supra) in the other referring order, that decision 93 Cal LJ 23 has been accepted as correc...
Krishna Prosad Bose Vs. Sm. Sarajubala Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal505,65CWN293
Bachawat, J.1. This Reference arises out of a suit filed by a sub-tenant for a declaration of his right to become a direct tenant under the superior landlord under Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 and for an injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his possession of the premises in suit.2. The landlord, Saraju Bala Dassi let to the tenant, Suniti Devi, the ground-floor of premises No. 1/28, Prince Golam Mohammed Road. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice to quit with effect from the 1st of May, 1953 and thereafter instituted a suit for ejectment against the tenant and obtained a decree for ejectment against her on August 24, 1954. The plaintiff, Krishna Prosad Bose was no party to that suit. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on November 11, 1954. He claims that he has been a sub-tenant of a portion of the ground-floor of the premises under Suniti Devi. The plaintiff (sic) disputes the existence o...
Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy Vs. Jahar Lal Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Cal499,65CWN273
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. A conflict of Bench decisions in this Court on the interpretation of the words 'the date of the suit', as used in the first proviso to Section 36(1) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, has given rise to the present reference. In the order of reference, which was made by Mookerjee, J., sitting with my Lord, the Chief Justice, as he then was, on August 1, 1951, the conflicting decisions have all been carefully noted, set out find analysed and the learned referring Judges unequivocally expressed their preference for the view on the point, as expressed in the two decisions, reported in Nrisingha Chandra Pal v. Sm. Kanaklata Dasi : AIR1942Cal369 and Baidyanath Dutta v. Mrityunjoy Mukherjee : AIR1944Cal318 ; and openly disagreed with the other set of decisions, reported in Jagabandhu De v. Akshoy Kumar Sil : AIR1943Cal137 ; and Baroda Prosad Sukul v. Durga Prosad Roy : AIR1945Cal320 . Two questions were then formulated by them for decision of the Full Bench in the following...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »