Kolkata Court May 1961 Judgments
Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Keshavlal F. Gandhi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal290,65CWN949
Banerjee, J. 1. On October 19, 1953, the defendant Opposite Party no. 2 delivered to the defendant petitioner two package, said to contain 6000 Westing House torch-bulbs, to be carried by air from Bombay to Calcutta, under consignment Note No. Z-077672. The consignee was plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1.2. Each of the two packages contained 3000 pieces of torch-bulbs, in a carton container, wrapped in hessian and bound by iron straps.3. The consignment reached Calcutta on October 21, 1953. But as the consignee-plaintiff failed to take delivery of the consignment on arrival, the same was stored in the godown of the defendant-petitioner and a notice of arrival was sent to the consignee.4. On October 24, 1953, the consignee-plaintiff took delivery of the said two packages and granted a Clear receipt for the same. According to the allegation of the consignee-plaintiff he brought the packages to his shop and on opening one package found that the said did not contain torch bulbs but only old p...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Mritunjoy Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal275,66CWN191
Banerjee, J. 1. (After stating the facts, proceeded:) Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, learned Advocate forthe appellants, argued three points for our consideration in this appeal. He contended that the Court below was wrong in holding that the plaintiff had not been served with notices either under Section 9 or under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act if the plaintiff be found to have been served with the statutory notices and if he failed, even thereafter, to apply for a reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, within the time provided by law, the suit filed by him must not be held to be maintainable. He contended furtherthat even if no notice had been served on the plaintiff, even then the suit must fail, because there being a special remedy provided by the Land Acquisition Act, no remedy, by way of a suit was available to the plaintiff. Lastly, he contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 and 11 had waived their right to claim the compensation money by r...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Nath Mitter and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Hig ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal545,65CWN920
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (28 of 1954), the President is pleased to make the following order, namely:-1. This order may be Called the Calcutta High Court (Vacation) Order, 1960. 2. The vacations of the Calcutta High Court during the year 1961 shall be for the period specified below:- Eastern Vacation--From 31st March to 3rd April, 1961 (both days inclusive)--4 daysAnnual Vacation--From 9th October to 17th November, 1961 (both days inclusive)--40 daysChristmas Vacation--From 25th December to 31st December 1901 (both days inclusive).--7 days (M. Gopal Menon). Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. To The General Manager, Govt. of India Press New Delhi.'2. Three representative members of all the three branches of the legal professions here, an Advocate, a Barrister and a Solicitor, have moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the President's order a...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Amar Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal110
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises an important question, concerning the law of limitation. On or about Jutte 2, 1960, the connected appeal was dismissed for nonpayment of paper book costs. On March 23, 1961, the present rule was obtained for restoration of the said appeal. On the merits, we are satisfied that it is a fit case for restoration, as aforesaid, as sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant petitioner for excusing the default in question and the delay, if any, in the making of the present application is not, in the circumstances of this case, unreasonable. The point, however, has been raised by Mr. Bhattacharya, who appears for the contesting opposite parties, that the instant application is time barred under Article 188 of the Indian Limitation Act and, as a matter of law, Section 5 of that Act has no application here to enable or entitle the Court to condone the delay in the matter.2. On the second question, aforesaid, no decision is necessary as, in our view, th...
Tag this Judgment!Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Vs. Union Carbide (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal360
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act for an order that the arbitration agreement be filed in Court and reference made. The arbitration agreement is a clause in a building contract subsisting between the parties. The defendant employed the plaintiff to do the construction work of a factory building to be used and occupied by Eveready Flashlight Company. The building contract provided for the certification of workmanship by a firm of architects to wit Messrs. Ballardie Thompson and Matthews. The contact further provided that the works shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Architect whose decision as to sufficiency and quality of the work and material shall Be final and binding upon all parties. The plaintiff is the contractor and the building work is alleged to have been completed sometime in 1957. During the progress of the work eight running bills were submitted and paid in terms of the contract. The payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Anita Karmokar and anr. Vs. Birendra Chandra Karmokar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal88,65CWN786
B.N. Banerjee, J. 1. In May, 1960, Birendra Chandra Karmokar, the opposite party, tiled an application, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restitution of his conjugal rights with the petitioner No. 1 and Co-injunction against petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1, restraining her from interfering therewith or standing in the way thereof. The said application was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 93 of 93 of 1960. ------------- 5 of 1960 2. The petitioners filed a Joint Written Statement objecting to the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, inter alia, on the plea of cruelty, to the petitioner No. 1, by the opposite party and the members of his family. 3. On August 18, 1960, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application in. the aforesaid suit, underSection 24 of the Act, asking for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding. The Court below, on being satisfied that the wife petitioner No. 1 had no indep...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Palit Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal560,1961CriLJ617,65CWN977
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. On the view expressed by a Division Bench of S.K. Sen, J. and K.C. Sen, J. by their order of reference dated the 31st August. 1960 the learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench for determination of the following points raised on the order of reference :' (1) Does the Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Spe-cial Courts) Act, 1949, to whom the case has been allotted by notification under Section 4 (2) or the Act need a petition of complaint for taking cognizance of the case or does he take cognizance when on receiving the Government notification and the record of the case from the Court of the Magistrate, he applies his mind to the-facts of the case; and (2) Was this point rightly decided in the un-reported decisions in two Criminal Appeals-Nos. 377 of 1958 with the title Sudhanshu Ram Guha v. The State and 393 of 1959 with the title Nemai Chandra Paul v. The State being cases decided by a Division Bench of N.K. Sen, J. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Khetan and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR170(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal. The question of law on which the decision of this court is sought is as follows :'Whether on a true construction of the partnership deed dated 7th April, 1949, registration under section 26A of the Act can be granted to the assessee.'The assessee is a firm of partnership called Khetan & Company, Jalpaiguri. The assessment year out of which these proceedings started is the year 1950-51. The deed of partnership is dated 7th April, 1949. It is expressly made between four parties, (1) Sagarmull Khetan, (2) Shankarlal Khetan, (3) Rameshwardas Agarwalla, and (4) Shambhulal Khetan. The first, second and the fourth parties are brothers, all being sons of one Ghasiram Khetan. The fourth party, Shambhulal Khetan, in the deed of partnership is described as a minor son of Ghasiram Khetan and represented by his natural guardian and father,...
Tag this Judgment!Dipchand Golencha Vs. M. Abhechand and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal166,65CWN754
Banerjee, J.1. In the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before us, brought a suit against the defendant opposite party claiming Rs. 1974-12-9, being the balance of price of 142 mdst 20srs. of coriander seeds, sold by the former to the latter. 2. There is no dispute that the defendant contracted to buy from the plaintiff 300 bags of coriander seeds, each bag weighing 1 md 10 srs; out of that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant 142 mds. 20 srs. of coriander seeds, in 114 bags. There is also no dispute that the price agreed upon was Rs. 29/6/-per maund. For the quantity delivered, the agreed price would come upto Rs. 4173-11-6. Out of the same, the defendant paid to the plaintiff Rs. 2435-0-9, on December 20, 1955, leaving a balance of Rs. 1738-10-9. Adding interest on the unpaid price and sales tax, the plaintiff laid his claim at Rs. 1974-12-9. 3. The defence was that the sum of R. 2435-0-9 had been tendered by the defendant to the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Abinash Chandra Bose Vs. Bimal Kumar Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal113
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The accused petitioner was tried under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Magistrate and was acquitted. In fact, two cases were started by the complainant--one case being No. C 2062 of 1956 for the sum of Rs. 5000/-alleged to have been paid on the 27th February,1953 against a receipt which ended in acquittal being affirmed in this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1958. The other case was C 2067 of 1956 for two sums of Rs. 800/- and Rs. 4200/- alleged to have been paid respectively on the 27th February, 1954 and the 20th March, 1954 amounting to Rs. 5000/-. These proceedings arise out of this latter case. The learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him, of that charge under Section 258 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered him to be set at liberty forthwith. The complainant appealed befo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »