Kolkata Court May 1961 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.
Bakubhai and Ambalal Ltd. Vs. Bengal Corporation Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal1
1. The only point in this appeal is whether Contract No. 8702 dated London, the 13th December 1955, for sale of Indian linseed oil is illegal under Section 17(2) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 so that an English Award made thereon dated the 29th October 1956 is unenforceable under Section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention), Act, 1937 on. the ground that the contract is contrary to public policy or the law in India. 2. The buyer is Bakrubhai and Ambalal Ltd. an English Company incorporated in England under the English Companies Act and carrying on business at Baltic Exchange Chambers, 24 St. Mary Axe, London, E. C. 3, England. The seller is the Bengal Corporation Private Ltd., a Company incorporated In India under the Indian Companies Act and carrying on business at 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The Indian sellers failed to deliver the goods. The English buyers took arbitration proceedings under the contract in England, with notice to the Indian sellers ...
Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi M.P. Vs. Indian Motor Co., (Hazaribagh) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal127,[1962]32CompCas207(Cal),66CWN63
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of G.K. Mitter, J. dismissing the petitioner's application under sections 397 and 399 of the Indian Companies Act.2. The company is Indian Motor Co. Hazaribagh) Ltd. The petitioner is Maharani Lalita Rajya Laskhmi, a share-holder owning more than thirty per cent of the shares. Her allegation is that the Board of Directors is guilty of certain acts of omission and commission detrimental to the interest of the company and/or to the minority of the share-holders. She sets them out in paragraph 18 of her petition.3. Briefly, these allegations amount to this that the income of the company is deliberately shown less by excessive expenditure and many items of such expenditure are not properly vouched or receipted, The other allegation is that there is mismanagement of the affairs of the company attributable to the fact that the head office of the company is at Calcutta whereas the business of the company is in Hazaribagh and that passeng...
Gobinda Prasad Parui Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal174
Mitter, J.1. The appellant was tried upon a charge under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore, sitting with a Jury. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty which the learned Judge accepted. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 1/2 years. 2. The prosecution case was that the appellant, a pleader's clerk, committed forgery by altering the digit * '8' to * '3' of the figure * '1368' as also by erasing the word *(sic) in a copy of a registered bainapatra kept in volume 85 at Alipore Sub-registry Office. The charge however way forging * a certain document purporting to be a valuable security, to wit, a registered bainapatra, executed by Nabiruddin Mistry in favour of Bepin Behary Das, deed No. 7675 of the year 1955 recorded in volume No. 85 at page 288 etc.3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to thecharge and his case was that he had been coercedto make a confessional statement to the Sub-Regist...
Limton (Private), Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ361Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. For recovery of employees' contribution due from the appellants, for the period from 14 August 1955 to 20 December 1956, the respondents, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, filed an application before the Employees' State Insurance Court, West Bengal, praying for a decree for the amount due.2. According to the respondent the appellant 1 is a factory as defined in Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 (appellants 2 to 4) were the principal employees of the appellant 1, Limton (Private), Ltd., being respectively its joint managing directors and manager and that they were liable to pay the employees' contribution as required by the Act, which they did not do.3. The appellants contended that the appellant 1 was not a factory within the meaning of the Act and therefore they were not liable to pay the contribution as demanded.4. The Employees' Insurance Court held that...
Bhourilal Agarwalla Vs. Ashutosh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal111,65CWN1067
ORDERPurushottam Chatterjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff instituted the previous suit for ejectment, for rent and for mesne profits. In that suit the claim for mesne profits was not pressed and therefore that claim was dismissed. Subsequently the present suit was instituted claiming mesne profits.2. The first point taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that this is really a suit for profits and therefore, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. A person may lawfully be entitled to some benefits arising out of a property. This we understand to be profit. But when a person gets some benefit of a property because of his wrongful possession, we do not call it profit, we call it mesne profits. Therefore, profits within the meaning of the Article under the Small Cause Courts Act does not include mesne profits. Finally the matter came up betore a Full Bench of this Court and it was held tha...
Ramchand Jagdishchand Vs. the Deputy Collector of Customs, Calcutta an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Cal331,1963CriLJ749
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. Messrs. Ramchand Jagdishchand obtained this Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a Writ of Certiorari should not be issued for quashing the order dated April 20, 1960 and further for a Writ of Mandamus requiring the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the order and also for a Rule as to why a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 20,818.25 as mentioned in the petition.2. The petitioner on or about May 22, 1959, placed an order for supply of 8 cases of woollen fabrics with Messrs. K. Jos Otten of Germany through Messrs. T. S. Narang of Bombay at the rate of 20 shilling per yard. The goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta and were thereafter landed at the said port on or about August 28, 1959. On arrival of the goods the petitioner through its Clearing Agent, on September 5, 1959, submitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraisement, respondent No. 2 above named, the necessary documents...
Rameswarlal Sreenarain, a Firm Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal175
Bhattacharya, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant's claim inter alia is for recovery of price for 13 bales of staple fibre yarn out of a consignment of 15 bales, which were not delivered by the railways.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, while holding that the claim of the plaintiff was not time-barred, came to the conclusion that there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration. In the absence of any proof of successive endorsements, two in number, he also found that the plaintiff had no right to sue.3. On 1st January, 1952, a consignment of 15 bales of staple fibre yarn was booked at Raja Palayam station (Southern Railway) for delivery, under Invoice No. 4, at Shalimar (Howrah; Eastern Railway). The plaintiff obtained delivery of only 2 bales on 28th January, 1952. A short certificate was given on the following day. The goods were booked at owner's risk,4. Section 74-D of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 is undoubtedly applicable to the facts of the case. It is to...
Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and anr. Vs. Asit Ranjan Majumd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal530
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. These six appeals raise common questions of fact and law. It is agreed by Counsel in each of these appeals that one judgment should dispose them alt as has been done by the judgment under appeal, and that our judgment in Appeal No. 35 of 1961, between Asit Ranjan Majumdar and Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta will accordingly, do so.2. The petitioner challenges Bye-law 4A, old and new of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta made underSection 126, the Calcutta Port Act, 1890. He also challenges Clause 15(1)(c) of the Scheme made under the Dock Workers' Regulation of Employment Act, 1943. In the petition he prayed for a Mandamus calling upon the appellant Dock Labour Board to register his name as a registered employer within the meaning of the Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Act, 1948 and the Scheme made thereunder in 1956. He also prayed for a Mandamus upon the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta to forbear from givi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›