Kolkata Court July 1968 Judgments
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Jagadamba Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal281
Sinha, C.J.1. These four appeals have been heard together and they relate to a judgment of D. Basu, J., dated the 8th July. 1964, in C. R. Nos. 368 (W) of1962 and 433, (W), 434 (W) and 436 (W) of1963 which were heard analogously. F. M. A. 490 relates to C. R. No. 368 (W) of 1962, F. M. A. 491 relates to C. R. No 433 (W) of 1963, F. M. A. 492 relates to C. R. No. 434 (W) of 1963 and F. M. A. 493 relates to C. R. No. 436 (W) of 1963. All these matters have given rise to a common question of law which is as follows: The Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was passed by Parliament in exercise of the power given to it under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which gives the Union Parliament exclusive legislative power with respect to-'Regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent of which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law t...
Tag this Judgment!Rekhab Chand JaIn Vs. Paras Das Bhartiya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal394
ORDERR.M. Datta, J. 1. This is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 and for other reliefs. The suit was filed on or about 3rd January, 1968 and at that time on the ex parte prayer of the plaintiff the Court granted the leave to institute this suit. 2. The suit is for damages for Rupees 80,000/- for libel supposed to be contained in a letter dated 3rd July, 1967, addressed by the defendant to the District Inspector or Schools. 3. Before the filing of the suit the plaintiffs solicitor wrote to the defendant stating that the copy of the letter dated 3rd July, 1967, was forwarded to several persons of Jain Community in Calcutta and the letter was published in Calcutta and received wide publicity and the same was to the knowledge of the defendant. It is necessary here to set out the relevant portion of the said letter which ran as follows:-- 'Our client's attention has been drawn to a copy of your letter dated the 3rd July, 1967, addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal234,1969CriLJ594
B.N. Dutt, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the detention without trial of Baidyanath Ghosh under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act.2. The detenu, Baidyanath Ghosh was taken into custody on July 7, 1967 on the basis of a detention order made by the District Magistrate. Birbhum on the same day under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.3. This application under Section 491 of the Code was made on July 28, 1967, when this Rule was issued. Subsequently, on an application on behalf of the detenu, on September 28, 1967. the detenu was released on interim bail pending the hearing of the Rule. The Rule could be taken up for hearing only today.4. Mrs. Maltra. on behalf of the petitioner submits that the maximum period of detention, viz., one year has since expired and so the order of detention has lost its force and has expired by efflux. of tune. Mr. Sen o...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Gupta and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Mulchand Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal363,72CWN872
Ray, J. 1. This appeal is from the judgment and order of Datta, J., dated 23rd April 1908.2. The order was made on the summons dated 4th September 19(37 taken out by Jagannath Gupta and Co. Private Ltd. inter alia for the orders first, that the respondent Mule-hand Gupta the petitioner in Company Petition No. 158 be restrained from taking by himself his servant and agents or otherwise any further proceeding upon the said petition whether by advertising the same or otherwise, secondly, that the said petition be removed from the file of the proceedings and thirdly, for payment of costs.3. In support of the summons there is an affidavit of Bidya Bhusan Gupta affirmed on 4th September 19G7.4. Mulchand Gupta who preferred the Company Petition No. 158 of 1967 filed an affidavit in opposition affirmed on 13th November 1967. Bidya Bhusan Gupta fifed an affidavit in reply affirmed on 20th November 1967. There are further affidavits of Mulchand Gupta affirmed on 27th March 1968 and of Bidya Bhus...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Singha and ors. Vs. Dwijendra Nath Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal255
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. This is an application for the appointment of a Receiver and for injunction. This application has been made under the Arbitration Act in the matter of an arbitration agreement between the parties.2. The parties to the dispute are brothers, some are own brothers and some are step brothers. The disputes between the brothers are with regard to joint family or joint properties or businesses or properties and businesses in which all the brothers claim to be equally interested.3. One Dhirendra Nath Singha who was the father of the petitioner and also of all the respondents was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law and he had various properties and businesses. The said Dhirendra Nath Singha had three wives. His first wife Sushila Bala died without any issue. Dwijendra, Dwipendra, Dikendra and Digendra the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the sons of the said Dhirendra Naht Singha by his second wife Smt. Rose Bala who is dead. Debendra the petitioner, Dish...
Tag this Judgment!Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. Vs. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal238
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd. to be added as a party defendant in this suit and for stay of the suit until the disposal of this application. The application is dated 17-7-68. The grounds of this application are the petition of Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd., the applicant, verified by an affidavit of Bejoy Kumar Mundra, a Director of the applicant Company affirmed on 17-7-68 and also the plaint and proceedings in the present suit.2. The substance of this application is the submission that the petitioner Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd. is a necessary party to the suit. In order to show that it is a necessary party to the suit, the applicant relies on mainly two agreements, one dated 16-1-68 and the other dated 27-1-68.3. The first agreement of 16-1-68 is between Nirmaljit Singh Hoon and Sukhdev Varma. By this agreement Mr. Hoon agrees to sell and Mr. Varma agrees to buy Mr. Hoon's entire interest in the companies mentioned in the agreement for ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Bari Gadre and ors. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer of Collotol ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC98(Cal)
A.K. Sinha, J.1. These four rules are taken up together for the sake of convenience. In the first two rules the petitioners pray for refund of certain amounts lying as excess amounts with the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of assessments of two different periods and the latter two rules are directed against certain notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer for review of the assessments in respect of those periods.2. The facts in these rules are inter-connected and may be briefly stated as follows :3. The petitioners carry on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Messrs Harry & Co. at 54, Ezra Street, Calcutta. This firm is a registered dealer and holds a registration certificate No. 301 A(CL) under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, the Bengal Act and the Rules respectively). The petitioners paid in advance Rs. 8,274.37 nP. ...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nalinbhai B. Munshaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal146
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a rule, under Section 115, of the C. P. C. (5 of 1908), obtained by Texmaco, an abbreviation for Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd., calling upon the opposite party Munshaw to show cause why the order dated March 12, 1968, of a learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, dismissing Texmaco's application for a declaration that Shri Sasank Majumdar has been validly appointed a new arbitrator under Section 9, Clause (a), of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940, should not be set aside.2. The facts, which have led up to this rule, need not be referred to further than as follows:--On April 27, 1962, Texmaco, a leading engineering concern, engaged in the manufacture of cotton spinning machinery, appointed Munshaw its Sale Technical Adviser for textile machinery imported into India from Howa Machinery Ltd. of Japan, by virtue of an agreement dated November 10, 1954, or thereabouts, for technical collaboration between Texmaco and 'Howa'. An appointment as this of Munsha...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Biswanath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal175,73CWN163
Sinha, C.J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The respondent Biswanath Banerjee, was in 1951, appointed as Office Superintendent of the Board of Secondary Education, a statutory corporation set up by the West Bengal Secondary Education Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1950'). He had several promotions. In 1954 came to be passed the West Bengal Secondary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1954'). By this Act, the Board created by the Act of 1950 was superseded and its powers came to be exercised by an Administrator appointed by the State Government. On 8th August, 1962 the said respondent was appointed Secretary of the Board, on probation, by the then Administrator. On 20th February, 1963 came to be passed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1963'). On 24th of August 1963 the said respondent was confirmed as a Secretary of the Board. The Act of 1963 ...
Tag this Judgment!Benu Roy Vs. Manindra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal67,73CWN10
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. The question raised upon this rule under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the tenant-defendant is: whether or no his application dated April 8, 1968, under Section 17B, Sub-section (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 4 of 1968, (shortened hereafter into the Act) is time-barred by virtue of the provisions in Section 17B, Sub-section (1), itself. The learned munsiff holds, it is.2. As a matter of words, there appears to be no escape from the conclusion the learned munsif has come to. And what are the words? Other ingredients being there--they are very much there--the tenant may, within a period of sixty days of the commencement of the Act, make the requisite application. So, what is the date of such commencement? Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the Act answers it:'It shall be deemed to have come Into force on the 26th day of August 1967.'Sixty days from that day expired on October 25, 1967. But the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »