Kolkata Court September 1971 Judgments
Sitaram Jaipuria and ors. Vs. Banwarilal Jaipuria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal105,76CWN161
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of S.K. Mukherjea, J., dated the 16th March, 1971.2. This was an application in a representative action by a shareholder for an injunction restraining the company, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. and its directors from holding any meeting pursuant to a notice dated September 14, 1970 or from passing any of the resolutions set out in the said notice, or from Riving effect to the resolutions, if passed. This notice dated Sep. 14, 1970 was accompanied by an explanatory statement under Section 173(2) of the Companies Act.On the 12th Oct., 1970, the said resolution was unanimously passed by a general meeting held in pursuance of the said notice.3. The notice and the explanatory statement are challenged in the petition on the three following grounds:(a) Neither document disclosed whether permission has been obtained from the Central Government as required under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act for establishing t...
Tag this Judgment!Fatechand Mahesri and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal177,76CWN137
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. The principal question involved in this appeal is whether each of the coparceners of a Mitakshara Joint Hindu family is an intermediary within the meaning of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.2. The plaintiff No. 1 Fatechand Mahesri is the father of the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 10 are the grandsons of the plaintiff No. 1 Fatchand. Plantiffs Nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of the plaintiff No. 2 Sitaram, plaintiff Nos. 7 to 9 are the sons of plaintiff No. 3 Gouri Sarkar and the plaintiff No. 10 is the son of the plaintiff No. 4 Lakshmi Narayan.3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Fatechand Mahesri was the Karta of the said joint family. The properties described in Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Rawatmal Bhairudan Vs. the Rajputana Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal248
Ghose, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated August 7, 1969. passed by K. L. Roy. J. in an application made by the defendant under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The application was made by the defendant in the suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff being suit No. 2964 of 1968 inter alia on grounds of default for, amongst others, determination of the amount of the rent that was payable by the defendant in respect of the premises in suit and for direction to deposit the said amount upon such determination within such time as the Court would think fit.3. In the said application the applicant also prayed for leave to deposit the rent for the months of July and December, 1968. together with the statutory interest and the rent for the month of January, 1969. with the Registrar. Original Side of this Court. The defendant also prayed for leave to deposit rent (for months subsequent to January, 1969, in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Alak Prokash JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas68(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. The appellant was a director of several joint stock companies incorporated in India, including a company known as BenettColeman and Co. Ltd. He claims to have resigned from the directorship of this company on September 13, 1964, but according to the respondent the resignation took effect from September 17, 1964. 2. On September 17, 1964, the Union of India (first respondent) filed an application before the Company's Tribunal (respondent No. 2) constituted under Section 10A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), against the appellant under Sections 388B and 388E of the Act. The application was also directed against the appellant, his father, Shanti Prasad Jain, and two others, namely, Fian Chand Jain and P.K. Ray. In that application the Union of India prayed for a finding that the respondents in that application were not fit and proper persons to hold the office of directors or any other office connected with the conduct or management of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: [1973]91ITR614(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J. 1. A question of law relating to the construction of Section 58K(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises for consideration in this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. There were 4 scheduled banks, namely, Bengal Central Bank Ltd., Comilla Banking Corporation Ltd., the Comilla Union Bank Ltd. and the Hooghly Bank Ltd. Being scheduled banks, they were directly under the supervision and control of the Reserve Bank of India. There was a proposal for amalgamation of all these four scheduled banks and the proposal was implemented by drawing up a scheme for their amalgamation. Bengal Central Bank Ltd. changed its name to United Bank of India Ltd. and the scheme of amalgamation contemplated that Comilla Banking Corporation Ltd., the Comilla Union Bank Ltd. and the Hooghly Bank Ltd. would amalgamate with the United Bank of India Ltd. The scheme of amalgamation which has been set out at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book, inter alia, provides:(1) T...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Pratima Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal284,77CWN294
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal was preferred by the referring claimant against the award of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The referring claimant having died during the pendency of the appeal his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place and they are the present appellants before us.2. Premises No. 32. Bagman Lane is the acquired property and is the subject-matter of this appeal. On tile contiguous west of premises No. 32, is the premises No. 33. Bagmari Lane. Premises Nos. 29. 30 and 31. Bagmari Lane are situate on the contiguous east of Premises No. 32.3. Although, the acquired property is numbered as 32. Bagmari Lane, no part of it is situate on the Bagmari Lane. On the South of this premises there is a 16 feet wide common passes running East-West and the frontage of the premises is on this common passage. The common passage meets the Bagmari Lane on the East. Premises No. 33 also has its frontage on the common passage, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Ch. Sood Vs. A.S.O. Sub-division, Ranaghat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal455,76CWN149
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. In this Rule the petitioner is challenging an order dated August 2, 1968 passed in a proceeding initiated suo motu under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates' Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. There is no dispute that the disputed land appertaining the several khatians stands recorded in the name of the present petitioner in the finally published record-of-rights. A proceeding under Section 5-A of the said Act was unsuccessfully initiated in or about June, 1968, but as the transfers had taken place long prior to May 5, 1953, such proceeding was dropped. But immediately thereafter a suo motu proceeding under Section 44(2a) was instituted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and a notice dated July 17, 1968 was issued on the petitioner. This notice however discloses no ground for exercise of powers under Section 44(2a) but only reads as a notice fixing a date of hearing. It recites that whereas an application has been filed u...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanta Mohan Chatterjee Vs. Jagat Mohan Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal88,76CWN127
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against a (judgment and decree dismissing his suit. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is as follows:--2. The grand-father of the plaintiff, Ramani Mohan Chatterjee (since deceased) left considerable properties in Government Securities, shares of Companies, debts payable by different parties as also landed properties. He left a will with a codicil whereby his two sons, Rajat and Jagat (defendant 1) were given specified annuities during their life time and there were provisions for others also. The trustees appointed by the will were directed to hold the residue of the estate upon trust during the natural life of the said sons and after their death to divide the estate with its accumulations of Income in equal shares amongst his grand sons through the said sons. The trustees were empowered to sell the properties belonging to the estate and invest them under such stocks, funds, shares, securities, landed properties or...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Kajaria Vs. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal381,76CWN426
ORDERMurari Mohan Dutt, J. 1. These two Rules arise out of two pre-emption proceedings under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 2. It appears that some of the co-sharers of the disputed holding sold portions of the same to the opposite party M/s. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd. by two registered sale deeds dated April 2, 1966 and April 4, 1966. It is not disputed that the opposite party is a stranger in respect of the disputed holding. The petitioner alleged that he was a co-sharer raiyat of the holding and that the transfers were made without service of any notice upon the petitioner under Section 5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. After the petitioner came to know of the said two transfers, the petitioner made the said two applications before the Senior Land Reforms Officer on August 17, 1966, praying for pre-emption under Section 8(1) of the Act. 3. The opposite party opposed the said two applications of the petitioner. It was alleged by the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sovabati Dassi Vs. Kashi Nath Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal95
Masud, J.1. The important point to be decided in this suit is whether a sole shebait can lawfully alienate his right to shebaitship by will under Daya-bhaga School of Hindu Law. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:2. The settler of a deed of endowment, Kashinath Dey, died in 1902 leaving his widow Sm. Jhanobi Moni Dassi and a son Pulin Behari Dey. Pu-lin Behari Dey died a few years after the death of Kashinath Dey, as stated by Mr. Dipankar Ghosh on behalf of the defendant and not objected to by Mr. Debi De on behalf of the plaintiff, leaving Kalicharan Dey as his sole heir. Kalicharan died on December 20, 1958 leaving Kashinath Dey, the present defendant, being the adopted son of Kalicharan. Kalicharan had a natural son Panchugopal who died in May 1933. Kalicharan left a will dated November 21, 1958 whereby he appointed the defendant as the sole shebait. The material portions of the Deed of Settlement dated September 22, 1884 are stated below:'.....Also witnesseth t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »