Kolkata Court November 1964 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.
Deo Chand Singh Vs. Shah Mohammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal398,69CWN399
ORDERP.B. Mukharjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Munsif allowing the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(8) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.2. The petitioner tenant urges three main points in this Rule. His first point is that a solenama between the parties duly registered marked Ext. D, expressly provides a covenant that the petitioner tenant will hold the premises as tenant of the plaintiff for ten years with effect from April, 1955 and that during this period of ten years the tenant shall not be liable to be evicted on any ground whatever. It is, therefore, said that for the period of ten years from April, 1955 to March, 1965, the petitioner tenant was not liable to eviction on the ground of failure to pay rent and the only remedy of the landlord would be to sue for the rent. This covenant is claimed to protect the tenant from eviction on that ground. It is therefore sa...
Raghunath Banerjee Vs. Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C. and W.), Eas ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ190Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a fitter under the Eastern Railway. On 22 August 1961, the petitioner was apprehended by the Railway Protection Force with certain railway properties in his possession. He was taken to the Railway Protection Force Office and there his statement was recorded. Thereafter, there was the following charge-sheet served upon the petitioner asking him to explain why he should not be penalized for the misconduct mentioned in the charge, namely:At about 14/15 hours on 22 August 1961, when you were passing through the north side of South Jute Shed, you were caught by on-duty Railway Protection Force and found to be in possession of two pieces of broken brass bearing weighing about 2 seers belonging to the railway administration. You have committed gross misconduct.Along with the chargesheet the petitioner was not supplied with any statement of allegations as was required under Rule 1709 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for Non-gazetted Railway ...
Sri Gopal Jalan and Co. Vs. Singhania Bros. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal531
U.C. Law, J. 1. This is a suit for a declaration that the decision and resolution of the defendant association and/or its Committee dated 1st April 1948 is void and of no legal effect and does not bind the plaintiff in any way and also for an injunction restraining the defendant association, their servants and agents from enforcing or giving effect to the said decision and resolution in any way. The case made out in the plaint is as follows:2. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are members of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (the defendant No. 2) to be referred to hereafter as the said association. The plaintiff's case is that on 24 November 1943 Sri Gopal Jalan a member of the plaintiff firm in his individual capacity sold 4,000 shares in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. to the defendant No. 1 at Rs. 35/12/- per share and a further 4,000 shares in the said company at Rs. 35/11/-per share. On 19th March 1944 out of the said 8,000 shares Sri Gopal Jalan bought back 6,000 sh...
T. Sanjeevi and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Cal58
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. The petitioners, T. Sanjeevy and Krishnapada Chatterjee, were employees of the Himalayan Aviation Ltd.--Respondent No. 4. By two notices of November, 1951 and March, 1952, Respondent No. 4 terminated the services of the Petitioners whereupon the Petitioners moved the Labour Commissioner, and a conciliation proceeding for settlement of the industrial dispute arising out of that order of termination of services was started. During the pendency of the said conciliation proceeding the undertaking of Respondent No. 4 was transferred to and vested in the Indian Airlines Corporation.--Respondent No. 3,--with effect from the 1st of August, 1953, under the provisions of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. Failing conciliation, the dispute was eventually referred for adjudication to the Sixth Industrial Tribiunal, West Bengal, and the Indian Airlines Corporation was made a party in that proceeding. After a remand by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, holding that the proceeding was ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›