Kolkata Court August 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.
P.K. Basak and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Representing Eastern Rail ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal87
Bachawat, J.1. I adhere to the view expressed in the order of reference. The majority of my Lords take the opposite view and I will therefore say a few words in addition to what I have already said in the Order of reference.2. The reason for an article such as Article 8(1) of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947 is obvious. Up to the 15th August, 1947 there was one Central Government for the whole of undivided India, and hence all contracts made on behalf of the Governor General in Council before that day were for purposes of the Central Government of undivided India. All such contracts were made in exercise of the executive authority of the Governor General in Council see Section 175(3) read with Section 313(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. With the passing of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 the territorial integrity of British India was broken, and its territories were divided between the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. This...
The Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs. Subodh Gopal Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal209
Bachawat, J.1. The plaintiff respondent is the purchaser of Tauzi No. 6 of the 25-Parganas Collectorate in sixteen annas share at a revenue sale held on January 6, 1936. As such purchaser he acquired the lands included within the Tauzi free from encumbrances With the fight to annul alt under-tenures which were not protected by the exceptions in section 37 of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859 [Act XI of 1859). The disputed property is land at premises No. 1 Ronaldshay Road, in mouza Alipore in which Tauzi No. 6 had 1 anna 3 gandas share. The disputed land as also other iands in Matiza Alipore were jointly owned by the proprietors of Tauz No. 6 and several other Tauzis. The defendant's landlord held the land under a lease from the proprietors of all the Tauzis other than Tauzi No. 6. The defendant ts In possession of the land for a long time and has constructed valuable buildings on it. The plaintiff now seeks to recover joint possession of the land on the ground that the defendant...
Sm. Krishnamoni Dasi Vs. Baser Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal225
Bachawat, J.1. There was a lease of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff and a simultaneous agreement by the plaintiff to reconvey the property to the defendant on payment of a named sum. The defendant applied to a Debt Settlement Board for settlement of his debts alleging tnat the transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale. The plaintift denied this contention and disputed the jurisdiction of the Board to decide the matter. The Board made an award settling the debt on the footing that the transaction created a mortgage liability amounting to a debt. An appeal and a revision petition by the plaintiff failed and tni award became final. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit praying for declaration that the lease and thi agreement did not create the relationship of debtor am creditor and that the award of the Board is void and with-out jurisdiction and for consequential injunction. The defendant pleaded that the award of the Board was conclusive and the Civil C...
Santosh Kumar Mondal and ors. Vs. Nandalal Chakrapani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal289
Bachawat, J.1. In the suit out of which this reference arises, plaintiffs claimed declaration of their title to c.s. plot No. 105 of mouza Gournagar, for recovery of possession of the suit land and for damages for cutting and taking away peas and bamboos grown on it. Defendants filed written statements denying plaintiffs' title to the suit land, and alleging that by amicable partition amongst defendants Nos. 1 to 6 collectively referred to as Chakrapani defendants, the suit land was allotted exclusively to defendant No. 3 who thereafter sold it to defendants Nos. 7 to 10. The trial Court found that plaintiffs were entitled to the suit land and that defendants had jointly dispossessed plaintiffs and were liable to pay Rs. 192/- as damages and on these findings decreed the suit. The decree of the trial Court proceeded on grounds common to all the defendants. All the defendants appealed from the decree impleading plaintiffs as respondents to the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Himco (India) Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Cal404
Bachawat, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Union of India from an order passed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The Union of India invited tenders for the supply of certain goods. The invitation contained inter alia the following query:'Do you agree to sole arbitration by Director General of Supplies and Disposals or his nominee as provided in Clause 21 of me General Conditions of Contract Form W. S. B. 196? (Your acceptance or non-acceptance of this clause will not influence the decision of the tender. It should, however, be noted that an omission to answer the above question will be deemed, as an acceptance of the clause).'2. Defendants M/s. Himco (India) Private Ltd. submitted their tender dated October 3, 1956 wherein they stated at the foot of the query mentioned above as follows:--'We feel there should be an unattached arbitrator'.The Union of India accepted the tender by A/T No. Cal./PR-II (3)/16359-G/448 dated November 30, 1956. The acceptance stated inter alia tha...
Sm. Nanda Rani Debi Vs. Apcar Collieries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal636
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding for apportionment of compensation in a land acquisition case. The acquisition in question was made for the construction of staff quarters of the Coat Mines Stowing Board, Asansol. The appellant before us claimed to be a permanent mokarari tenant under the respondent company in respect of the acquired land, measuring 7.04 acres in Mouza santa, P. S. Asansoi, District Burdwan. Her claim was accepted by the Collector, who, by his award, dated April 1, 1949, gave her the whole of the compensation money less only a sum of Rs. 2/10/6p. which was given to the respondent company, the amount awarded to the appellant being Rs. 35,215/12/0 out of the total compensation of Rs. 35,218/6/6p., awarded by the Collector, so far as these parties are concerned. The award, so far as the valuation goes, was not objected to by either party, but the respondent company, feeling aggrieved by the above apportionment, applied, on May 5, 1949, for an app...
Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Second Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal348,[1962(5)FLR308],(1963)ILLJ169Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. As between the petitioner company, Messrs. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. and their workmen, there arose an industrial dispute over the dismissal of a number of workmen and suspension of some others. The respondent State Government referred the dispute to the Second Labour Court, for adjudication, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issues that were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication are set out below:'(1) Whether the dismissal of the workmen named in the attached list 'A' is justified? To what relief, if any, are they entitled?(2) Whether suspension for an indefinite period of the workmen named in the attached list 'B' is justified? To what relief, if any, are they entitled?' In list 'A' were included the names of 17 workmen (wrongly stated as 16 in the petition). In list 'B' were included the names of 13 workmen.2. The aforesaid reference bears the date, April 26, 1950. Subsequently, however, by an order dated ...
Renupada Dutta Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ90
ORDERD.N. Das Gupta, J.1. These two Revisional petitions are directed against the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore, setting aside the order of a Magistrate discharging the accused persons in an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directing the learned Magistrate to commit the accused persons to the Court of Session.2. The complainant's case is that Surendra Kamilya, Upendra Kamilya and Jogendra Kamilya were three brothers, that accused petitioners Ram Chandra Kamilya, Lakshman Chandra Kamilya, Satrughna Kamilya and Santosh Kamilya are the sons of late Upendra Kamilya, that accused petitioners purna Chandra Kamilya, Pulin Kamilya, Nalini Kamilya and Anil Kamilya are the sons of late Jogendra Kamilya and that the complainant Katyayani Kamilya is the widow of Surendra Kamilya. Surendra lias got no soil; his three daughters named Jahnabi, Basanti and Joyanti are married; he died on the 4th May, 1960. On the night of the 18th Bais...
Banku B. Das Vs. Kashi N. Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal85,67CWN258
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J. 1. This is a proceeding in which BankuBehari Das seeks to propound the Will of his fatherManmatha Nath Das. The Will is dated August 20,1960. The Will is being contested by Kasliinath andHem Chandra. They have filed caveats and affidavits in support thereof. In the affidavits the only point of substance raised is that the instrument sought to be propounded is not a testamentary instrument and as such no probate can be granted to such an instrument. Mr. B.N. Dutta Ray learned counsel appearing for the caveators did not raise any other dispute. It is not disputed that the instrument was executed and attested according to law, as if it is a testamentary instrument. 2. The provisions of the Will are simple. The instrument has been described as a testamentary instrument by Manmatha Nath Das and has been executed and attested by two attesting witnesses as such. The only son of the executant has been appointed executor. The disposition in the Will is in the following ter...
Shivaram Poddar Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal281
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution in respect of a Division Bench decision whereby an order dismissing a writ application for quashing a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act was affirmed.2. The facts requiring to be stated for the limited purpose of this application are these: the petitioner was a partner of a firm called Balmukund Radheyshyam which carried on the business of commission agency in sale and purchase of cotton and cotton piece goods at Ratlam and Indore. The firm commenced business sometime in December, 1947, bat was dissolved in February, 1950. In August, 1952, one of the partners made a return of income of the said firm showing Rs. 18700/- and odd as net profits of the firm's first year of business, that is, the assessment year 1949-1950. An assessment was made on that basis and the tax assessed was duly paid. In October, 1955, the Income Tax Officer, (Central), Circle II, Calcutta, ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »