Kolkata Court September 1965 Judgments
Babulall Choukhani Vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal205,71CWN458
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. By this suit, the plaintiff Babulall Choukhani seeks to recover from the defendant Caltex (India) Ltd., said to be a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, the sum of Rs. 25,000 as retention fee at the rate of Rs. 2,500 a month for ten months from August 1, 1963, to May 31, 1964.2. A claim as this rested on a bilateral agreement in the form of a letter dated April 30, 1963, by Caltex to Babulall who by an endorsement at the bottom thereof over his signature dated May 1, 1963, confirmed the terms it embodied. The importance of this document to the fortunes of the present litigation is such that it deserves to be reproduced in full: ---------- | Seal |PETROLEUM | CALTEX | PRODUCTS ---------- CALTEX (INDIA) LIMITED(Incorporated in the Bahama Islands) Liability of the members is limited. United India Life Bldg., 22 Chittaranjan Avenue Post Box 2382, Calcutta-1 Telephone: 235081-89. Telegrams 'CALTEX' April 30, 1963. -------------------------- | In rep...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Aslam and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1231
ORDERK.C. Sen, J.1. This Rule was directed against the order of the learned 1st Class Magistrate of Sealdab whereby he has ordered issue of summons against the: accused petitioners under Sections 6(a), 6(e) and 18 of the1 Indian Boilers Act. The prayer of the accused petitioners is that this proceeding against them should bee quashed.2. The petitioners are proprietors of firm named and styled as Hind Rubber Industries at 2, New Tangra Road, Calcutta. What happened is that according to the petitioners on 28.1.1962 while Biswanath Mistry was testing the baby boiler at about 8-15' p. m. the boiler really Durst, whereby Biswanath died and some other persons were injured. The Chief Inspector of boilers filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate of Sealdah on 30.3.1962, under the aforesaid sections. The Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issue of summons against the accused petitioners. On 19.6.1962 the complaint was; dismissed under Section 204 of the Criminal P.C., by the? Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramashankar Prosad and ors. Vs. Sindri Iron Foundry (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal512,70CWN520
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by a learned Judge of this Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act under Sections 397 and 398 of the said Act, at the instance of three persons who joined as members of the company early in the year 1962 and were also on the Board of Directors when in March 1963 they put in the petition complaining of various malpractices of respondents 2 to 4 and their conduct of the company's affairs in a manner oppressive to the petitioners.2. The Sindri Iron Foundry (P) Limited. the first respondent in the petition, was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on or about September 10, 1957 as a Private Limited Company. Its registered office was then situate at No. 52/1, Dr. Abani Dutt Road, Howrah. Its authorised capital was Rs. 10 lakhs divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The paid up capital appears to have been three lakhs sixty thousand six hundred held entirely by a croup which may be called the Prosad grou...
Tag this Judgment!Makhanlal Dey Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ782Cal
S.K. Datta, J.1. This appeal is by a dismissed Government servant, Makhanlal Dey, against the Union of India and raises questions regarding the construction of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution.2. The more relevant facts necessary for appreciating the controversies of law Involved In this appeal are given herein below In the next two paragraphs:3. In 1937 the plaintiff, Makhanlal Dey, was employed as an estimator in the Military Engineering Service commonly known as M.E.S. He was thereafter promoted to the rank of a Superintendent and ultimately employed at the relevant time as a Sub-divisional Officer, commonly known as S.D.O. The plaintiff was accordingly admittedly at all material times a civilian in the Defence Service.4. On 16 December 1919 a chargesheet was made over to him which contained inter alia charges of negligence In the course of his duties. On 23 November 1949 the Constitution of India came Into force. On 5 September 1951 the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command,...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath Shukla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal388
Masud, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Datta, J., delivered on 20th April, 1961 whereby he has granted a decree for Rs. 14,685 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent against the appellant in a suit for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff-respondent Surendra Nath Shukla was appointed as a Clearing Clerk on a salary of Rs. 125 per month by Bharat Airways Ltd., having its registered office at No. 8, Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta sometime in 1948. In or about 10th January, 1950 the name of the said Bharat Airways Ltd. has been changed to M/s. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (the appellant), but the registered office of the appellant retained the same address. The respondent, M/s. Birla Bros. Ltd., which was the managing agent of the said Bharat Airways Ltd; continued as managing agent of the appellant after the said change of name. The respondent, Indian Airlines Corporation, a body corporate, constituted under Section 3, Air Corporations Act, 1953 was im...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Ii(i ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: [1967]63ITR192(Cal)
SINHA J. - The facts in these appeals are briefly as follows : By an arpannamah (deed of dedication) dated the 17th Baisakh, 1303 B. S. (the 28th April, 1896), Srimati Kadambini Dassi and Sri Purno Chandra Daw, respectively, the widow and the son of the late Shibkrishna Daw, for selves and as executrix and executor to the estate of the late Haridas Daw, created a debutter endowment in respect of their family dwelling should at 12, Shibkristo Daw Lane, Jorasanko, Calcutta, in which the ancestral family deity Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew was installed and other immovable properties including debalaya (temple) on the banks of the Ganges at village Barrackpur, now known as Barrackpore, in which the deities, Radharaman Jiew and Sridhar Jiew Salgram, and six images of Shiva had been enshrined. The said debutter is collectively derived as 'Shib Krishna Debutter' and the estate is known as the Shib Krishna Debutter Estate. The present shebait of the said deities, in terms of the said arpannamah, is Pu...
Tag this Judgment!indra Singh and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal14,[1967]64ITR501(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1) (a) and (b), in the alternative for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. On September 25, 1963, a notice was served upon the petitioner under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, for rectification of an order of assessment and on September 28, 1963, an order was made by the Income-tax Officer for rectifying the assessment order for the assessment year 1958-59 by adding back Rs. 13,37,370. As a result of certain proceedings, to which it is not necessary to refer for the purpose of this application; an order was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on November 10, 1962, by which a sum of Rupees 13,37,370 was held to have been actually distributed by the petitioner, by crediting the accounts of the snare-holders as dividends on shares held by them. It was further held by the Tribunal that the said sum had been actually distributed prior to the relevant year and for that reason the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lahoriram Prashar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal444
Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of Banerjee, J., dated March 26, 1963, rejecting the appellant's application for a rule nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant claims to be the sole proprietor of a firm known as Unity Production, (hereinafter referred to as the firm). It is alleged that this firm was a partnership firm of which the appellant and one Ramesawar Sharma were the partners. This firm was carrying on business as film producers at 20. Baburam Ghose Road, Tollygunge, Calcutta. The firm was a tenant under one Kanahayalal Kauodia, since deceased, in respect of a studio at the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,500/-. In May, 1943, the said premisesNo. 20, Baburam Ghose Road were requisitioned under Rule 75(a) of the Defence of India Rules. Possession was taken of the said premises on August 11, 1943, from the said firm. This requisition was made for and on behalf of the Government of India. Claim for compensation was made both by th...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Santi Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal129,(1968)IILLJ203Cal
Sinha, J. 1. In this appeal, the Union of India as representing the Eastern Railway, is the first appellant, and the appeal is against an order of Banerjee J., dated 21st January, 1964, made in an application by one Santi Kumar Banerjee, against the Union of India representing the Eastern Raihvay, and others. The facts in the application are briefly as follows: The petitioner states that he was previously in the employment of the Bengal and Assam Railway and thereafter became employed by the Eastern Railway. On 20th March, 1937 he was promoted to the rank of Ticket Collector and was at the material time holding the post of a confirmed Ticket Collector in the Eastern Railway. It is stated that since 1950 and from time to time, the Railway Board sanctioned the creation of a few upgraded posts of Ticket Collector on the scale of Rupees 200-300 and simultaneously there was a similar sanction for the creation of certain upgraded posts of Travelling Ticket Examiners, which according to the p...
Tag this Judgment!LachminaraIn Kanoria and Co. Vs. Victory Jute Mills
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1965
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas53(Cal),70CWN110
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is an application for an order that the notice dated April 2, 1965, issued under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, be set aside and also for an order that the service of the notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act be declared to be bad and ineffective. The other reliefs askedfor are that the arbitration agreement dated February 1, 1961, be declared to be void and of no effect and that it be declared that the award purported to be dated October 1, 1962, was not made or signed on October 1, 1962, and did not exist on October 1, 1962, and that the award be set aside.2. The award is made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry and bears the date October 1, 1962. The award is as follows :' That Lachminarain Kanoria & Co. shall pay to Victory Jute Mills in full settlement of their claim herein, the sum of Rs. 32,875 (Rupees thirty-two thousand eight hundred and seventy-five) together with interest, thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »