Kolkata Court July 1962 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.
Mohammad Safique Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal399
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing a claimagainst the Union of India awning and representing certainrailways for compensation for non-delivery of a consign-ment. 2. The sole appellant Mohammad Shafique and his brother Mohammad Rafique carry on business under the name and style of Mohammad Shafique and Brothers, a registered firm at Raniganj within the sub-division of Asansol. They deal in tobacco including what is called 'makha' (mixed) tobacco. With a view to manufacturing 'makha' tobacco of various qualities, they purchase scents from far and near.3. On September 27, 1951 the Foreign Scent Supplying Syndicate (shortened in the railway receipt into F.S.S.S.) of Bombay despatched one case of chemical perfumery christened 'Satomala' from Borivli, a station the abbreviation of which in railway terminology is B.V.I. The case contained 112 Ibs. of 'Satomala'. The destination of this consignment despatched unde...
Satyendra Nath Bose Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Bhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal104
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is from an order of G.K. Mitter, J., dated March 27, 1961, refusing the appellant's prayer to participate under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure in rateable distribution of certain assets held by the Court.2. The short facts required to be stated for the purpose of this appeal are that one ProfuIla Lal Guin (respondent No. 6) was heavily indebted to several persons including respondents Bibhuti Bhusan Bhar and Aminulla Khan. Profulla was in the employ of the National aim Grindlay's Bank Limited, and he had his Provident Fund Account with the Bank. In May, 1955, respondent Aminulla Khan obtained a decree against him for the sum at Rs. 7431 and odd. He applied for execution of the decree in August of that year. In September 1955 respon-dent Bibhuti Bhusan Bhar obtained a decree against Profulla for Rs. 8376 and odd. It was a consent decree which provided for payment of the decretal dues by annual instalments. Default having occurred in payme...
Hindusthan Flash Light Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Great American Insurance Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal149
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator in place and stead of Shri Kalyan Kumar Basu, who died during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding. There is a dispute between the parties on an insurance policy. The petitioner preferred a claim on that policy which claim was disputed by the respondent. The arbitration clause in the policy is Clause 18 which reads as follows:'If any difference arises as to the amount of any loss or damage, such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of the arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or if they cannot agree upon single arbitrator, to the decision of two disinterested persons as arbitrators of whom one shall be appointed in writing by each of the parties. * * And it is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the Award by such arbitrator, arbitra...
The State Vs. Nadu Badyakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal562,1963CriLJ498,67CWN494
Sen, J. 1. This reference under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by Sri P. C. Banerjee, Magistrate, Raigunj, for deciding whether Section 3 of the Bengal Criminal Law (Industrial Areas) Amendment Act, 1942 (Bengal Act IV of 1942), particularly the second clause of Sub-clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act, offends against Article 14 and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 3 of the Bengal Criminal Law (Industrial Areas) Amendment Act, 1942, runs as follows : 'Any person found between sunset and sunrise (a) armed with any dangerous or offensive instrument whatsoever with any intent to commit any criminal act; (b) disguised in any manner with intent to commit any criminal act; (c) in any dwelling house or other building whatsoever, without being able satisfactorily to account for his presence therein; or any person previously convicted of theft found between sunset and sunrise on board any vessel or boat or lying or loitering in any baz...
Sm. Prativa Pal Alias Sm. Prativa Rani Pal Vs. Janhabi Charan Chatterj ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal470,67CWN522
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. The judgment I render now governs two second appeals 67 and 68 of 1957 -- each by a tenant defendant arising out of actions in ejectment instituted in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta on December 22, 1954 concerning parts of 134/3A Cornwallis Street on the ground floor.2. In '67', the appellant is Prativa Pal who, it is said, was the tenant of a shop room on a rent of Rs. 35/-a month payable according to the English calendar month. In '68', the appellant is Prativa's father, Girish Chandra Ghosh, who, it is said, held the adjacent shop room in the same premises on the same terms as his daughter.3. The plaintiff in each of the two actions in ejectment is Janhabi Charan Chatterjee. Necessarily he is the sole respondent in each of the two appeals before me.4. The two suits for eviction -- one against the father and the other against the daughter -- were groundedon default in payment of rent from June 1953 to January 1954 -- a little more than three occasions of two ...
Lalchand Bhur and anr. Vs. Sm. Sushila Sundari Dassi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Cal623
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants Lalchand Bhur and Kalachand Bhur against the decree declaring that a consent decree passed in Suit No. 1493 of 1942 except Clauses 7 (a), 7 (b), 8 (ii)(a) (b) and 9 and 11 thereof are no more applicableor of any effect or executable or binding upon the plaintiff Sushila Sundari Dassi and consequential reliefs. One Bamacharan Bhur, a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga Law died in 1905 leaving behind him substantial properties and his widow Sushila Sundari as his heir. In 1942 Lalchand a reversioner to the estate of Bamacharan instituted asuit against Sushila Sundari impleading as parties to the suit all other immediate and remote reversioners to the estate of Bamacharan and also the deity Sri Sri Brojokishore Jew claiming, inter alia, a declaration that Lalchand and certain other persons were the then reversioners entitled to succeed to the estate of Bamacharan on the death of Sushila Sundari, an injunction restraining Sushila Sundari for mis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›