Kolkata Court March 1966 Judgments
John Herbert and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Kumar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas485(Cal),70CWN516
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to stay proceedings in a company petition No. 22 of 1965 for winding up of the appellant-company.2. The facts are as follows: The company, the appellant before us, is a private limited company with a nominal capital of Rs. 1,00,000 divided into 100 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The paid up capital of the company is Rs. 90,000. The main object of the company is to carry on work of mechanical and constructional railway and electric engineers. Under its articles of association the company is to have no directors and its business is to be conducted by the members who are to exercise all the powers and functions of the directors. There were originally three members each with 30 shares. Each member is to have one vote and the quorum at all meetings is two members present personally. Under the articles Profulla Kumar Dutta, the eldest of the three brothers, who are members of the company, was competent to sign in the name of the company, to re...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Rothas Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal591,70CWN729
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for production of documentary evidence 'at the first hearing of the suit.' The effect of non-production of documents, at the first hearing, is dealt with in Rule 2 of Order XIII, in the following language:'No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been put has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof: and the Court receiving any such evidence 'shall record the reasons for so doing' ' (underlined, here into single quotation for emphasis).2. Rules 1 and 2, referred to above, apply to documents in the possession and power of parties, on which they intend to rely, and also to documents which are ordered to be produced by the Court. Where documents are not in the possession and power of the parties, they can...
Tag this Judgment!Jotindra Nath Ghose Vs. Jugal Chandra Santra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal637
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. In this appeal a short and interesting point of law arises for determination. The point for determination is the interpretation of the word 'party' used in Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. The controversy is whether the word 'party' means only a party to the suit or the decree or the appeal or does it also include a stranger.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be set out before proceeding to determine the question. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 110 of 1952 against the respondent as defendant. The suit was decreed in part by the learned Munsif who allowed a decree for possession and eviction of the defendant. An appeal was thereafter taken from that judgment and decree before the learned Subordinate Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and dismissed the suit on the ground that the land in suit was held by the defendant's wife as a tenant. But the defendant's wife was not a party to the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Agarwalla Vs. Satya NaraIn Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas146(Cal)
Sinha, C.J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : Messrs Laxmi Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said company) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. On or about the 31st January, 1953, the company executed a first mortgage of its assets for Rs. 1,25,000 in favour of Shankarlal Agarwalla and Dinanath Agarwalla in the name of their firm of Bansidhar Shankerlal. On the 21st January, 1954, the company executed a second mortgage of its assets for Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of Shankarlal Agarwalla and Dinanath Agarwalla, in the name of their firm of Bansidhar Shankarlal. On the 25th November, 1954, a suit was filed for the enforcement of the said mortgages, being Suit No. 3365 of 1954 (Bansidhar Shankerlal v. Laxmi Spinning and Weaving Mitts Ltd.). In or about February, 1955, one Nathmal Bhojnagarwalla instituted a suit in this High Court against the company and the mortgagees, inter alia, for a declaration that the mortgages were...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Ziaul Haque Vs. Calcutta Vyaper Pratisthan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal605
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale in respect of the property mentioned in the plaint. There are consequential reliefs prayed for, namely a direction on the defendant to execute and register the conveyance in respect of the property, a direction on the Registrar to settle or execute the conveyance if necessary.2. The alternative prayers are a decree for Rs. 3,00,001 with interest in terms of paragraph 18 of the plaint, and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in terms of paragraph 19 of the plaint, and if necessary an enquiry as to the amount due. The plaintiff has also asked for a declaration that the property stands charged for the due payment of the sum of Rs. 3,00,000.3. The allegations in the plaint are as follows. First, that between 30 April 1963 and 6 May 1963 it was agreed by and between the parties through Ramkisanji Dhanuka that the defendant would sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff would purchase from...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Banerjee Vs. Sm. Snehalata Devi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal380,72CWN128
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by defendant No. 4. It arises out of a suit for partition and is directed against the final decree for partition, made by the learned trial Judge. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and they are as follows:2. The disputed property, which was holding No. 428, now premises No. 88, Dewan Dataram Mondal Ghat Road, within the Kamarhati Municipality, and comprised an area of one bigha, five cottahs and odd, originally belonged to one Kedar Nath Chatterjee. On July 11, 1913, Kedar sold it to one Mihir Lal Banerjee, who died on January 11, 1930, leaving behind him surviving, as his heirs and legal representatives, six sons, Narendra, Amarendra, Surendra, Dhirendra, Jitendra and Birendra. Of these Surendra was defendant No. 1 in the instant suit, Dhirendra defendant No. 2, Jitendra defendant No. 3 and Birendra, the present appellant, defendant No. 4 Narendra died in the year 1934 and Amarendra died in 1941. Before their death, as aforesaid, Narendr...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Mazumdar Vs. Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal321,1967CriLJ738,(1968)ILLJ630Cal
Sinha, C.J.1. In this case the farts are shortly as follows :2. The petitioner appellant entered the Police service in 1940. Since 1952, he has been stationed in the district of Hooghly. On or about 30th November, 1956 a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant, a copy of which is Annexure 'B' to the petition. The charges were somewhat serious and involved moral turpitude. The respondent No. S, namely, the Inspector, District Enforcement Branch (1), was entrusted with the conduct of the enquiry. The Enquiring Officer held an enquiry which was conducted in the presence of the appellant, and on the 8th July, 1957 submitted his report, finding him guilty but recommending a lenient punishment. The Additional Superintendent of Police issued the usual show-cause notice asking the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant was asked whether he wanted a personal hearing. The appellant showed cause and asked for personal hearing and was duly heard. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Satya Bhusan Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal545,(1969)ILLJ27Cal
Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Union of India and others against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court making absolute a rule obtained by the respondent directing the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellants to rescind and to recall the notice of termination of service dated August 23, 1961 under Rule 149 of the Railway Establishment Code by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and other reliefs.2. The facts about which there can be no dispute are as follows: The respondent Satya Bhusan Banerjee was appointed as a ticket collector after selection by the Railway Service Commission, on a temporary basis. On March 10, 1961 while he was on duty at gate No. 6 at the Howrah Railway Station he was charged verbally by B.M. Khanna, Additional Commercial Superintendent, Howrah with having allowed a passenger to pass in with unbooked luggage in excess of the exempted weight by taking illgeal gratification of one rupee from him. The respondent denied ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Prosad Chatterjee Vs. Chitra Rani Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal336,70CWN682
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for eviction, instituted while the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, was in force.2. It is not disputed by either party that the present case is governed by the said statute. The ground, taken under that statute, was the ground of default under Section 12(1) proviso (i).3. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge after striking out the defence against ejectment under Section 14(4) of that Act.4. There was an appeal from that decree to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, under the law, as it then prevailed, but the said appeal was ultimately dismissed by that court for non-compliance with an order under Section 14(5) of the above Act. From this decree of dismissal of the appeal, affirming, in effect, the decree of the suit by the learned trial Judge, the defendant took a second appeal to this Court, which was heard by our learned brother Bhattacharya, J., as he then...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnibas Jhunjhunwalla Vs. Benarashi L. Jhunjhunwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal314
ORDERS. Datta, J.1. This is an application by one Probhu Dayal Jhunjhunwalla, one of the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner Ramnibas Jhunjhunwalla, since deceased, for inter alia recording the death of Ramnibas Jhunjhunwalla and Benarasilal Jhunjhunwalla, the original respondent setting aside the abatement, if any, of the judgment upon award matter and recording the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Benarasilal Jhunjhunwalla and Ramnibas Agarwalla for necessary and incidental orders.2. In or about March 1961, the arbitrators entered into the reference. On April 10, 1961 the award was made and signed by the arbitrators. On the 28th May 1963, the award was filed in Court. On or about July 6, 1962 an application was made by Ramnibas Jhunjhunwalla for inter alia taking the award off the file and alternatively setting it aside. On the 16th July, 1962 the judgment upon award matter appeared in the list.3. On the 18th day of April 1965, Benar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »