Kolkata Court April 1972 Judgments
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas275(Cal),78CWN176
Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 16, 1971, passed by the court of first instance (see [1973] 43 Comp. Cas. 162), refusing to confirm a special resolution passed by the petitioner-company at an extraordinary general meeting of the members of the petitioner-company held on May 30, 1970, at No. 10, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi-24, resolving to remove the registered office of the company from No. 10, Camac Street, Calcutta, to the said No. 10, Ring Road, New Delhi, under Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner, Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, was originally incorporated under the name of Bharat Airways Ltd. on or about August 11, 1945. Upon the nationalisation of the scheduled passenger traffic by air, the name of the company was changed to Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. with effect from January 4, 1956. The present registered office of the company is situated at No. 10, ...
Tag this Judgment!Adhir Chandra Dey Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ303
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. This Rule was issued on a father's application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disputing the validity of detention of the detenu Mahadev Chandra De. Such detention is at present under an order dated September 13, 1971 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). An important question of law, as to whether a person in respect of whom an order of detention under Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) had failed for non-confirmation within three months from the date of detention can be subjected to a fresh detention under the Central Act on the same ground, falls for determination.2. Facts relevant to the issue are not in dispute. The detenu was first put to preventive detention on January 28, 1971 under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Lamp Works Vs. Pratap Chandra Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal361,77CWN738
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is an appeal against an Order of the Seventh Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore made on July 28, 1964 restraining [he respondent by an injunction from proceeding with a Suit for specific performance of a contract instituted in a Court at Delhi. Briefly, the facts are that on February 16, 1959 the Board of Directors of the India Electric Works Limited passed a resolution agreeing to sell a piece of land in Delhi to a partnership firm called Pradip Lamp Works. Some of the Directors of the Limited Company were the partners of the firm. On February 17, 1959, the limited Company informed the firm in writing that the resolution aforesaid had been passed. On November 17, 1960, the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 ap-pointed an authorised Controller of the India Electric Works Limited. We shall set out the relevant provisions of this Act at a subsequent stage. Let us now proceed with...
Tag this Judgment!Monoranjan Routh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal487,76CWN971
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. The facts of this case have been set out in our Judgment delivered on April 21, 1969. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners so far as Clause (b) of Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is concerned we directed the Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore to report to us whether the lands in question Were in the same state on the date of publication of notification as they were on December 31, 1946. The report of the First Special Additional Land Acquisition Judge is now available. He has stated that the lands were not on the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act (that is on the 19th July. 1962), in the same state as they were on the 31st December, 1946 and that substantial improvement or development was made after that date.2. This report of the First Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge makes the questio...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Kumar Sengupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal56
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Two questions are involved in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution namely,--(i) whether the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 is valid law and (ii) whether the petitioner has any locus standi to maintain this application. The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was enacted by the Constituent Assembly by virtue of Section 8 (1) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act the Constituent Assembly while exercising the powers of legislation had only the powers that the Federal Legislature had under the Government of India Act, 1935. Under Article: 372 of the Constitution all laws in force prior to the Constitution would continue until repealed or altered by competent authority. Therefore in order to be law in force the said law must have been valid law when it was enacted. The main question, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the Federal Legislature had the powers under the G...
Tag this Judgment!Arun General Industries Ltd. Vs. Gunny Trading Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal542
ORDERS.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application fordetermination of the existence or validity of 16 several contracts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petition whereby and whereunder the petitioner agreed to sell to diverse persons various quantities of jute goods described in the said several contracts on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said contracts.2. The said contracts were non-transferable specific delivery contracts within the meaning of the Forward Contract (Regulations) Act, 1952. Each of the said contracts contained an arbitration clause to the following effect to wit:'15. All disputes between the parties shall be referred to the arbitration of Indian Chamber of Commerce. Calcutta, under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and Courts situated within the area of original side of Calcutta High Court shall have jurisdiction'.The buyers under the said contracts purported to assign the rights under the said contracts in favour of the respondents. The petitioner failed and neglected t...
Tag this Judgment!Pashupati Roy and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal366,76CWN797
ORDERChittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioners in these Rules have challenged the validity of the requisition orders made under the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965, on the ground that the said Act is a colourable piece of legislation and also in violation of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India.2. The West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 was enacted 'to provide for the requisition and speedy acquisition of fisheries for the purpose of improvement or development of such fisheries and supplying fish to the public therefrom. Under Section 2(3) of the Act fishery means any land whereon water is confined naturally or artificially whether periodically or throughout the year for pisciculture or for fishing and includes a 'tank fishery' as defined in the explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act as also fish in such fishery or 'tank fishery' does no...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Iswar Jagannath Deb Jew and ors. Vs. Fatick Chand Seal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal489
ORDERHazra, J.1. This is an application by Mohan Chand Seal, the defendant No. 2 (b) in this suit, inter alia, for giving leave to Fatick Chand Seal, the Receiver, appointed in this suit, to lease out for a period of 99 years 30 Bighas of land at premises No. 98. Manicktolla Main Road, Calcutta to the intended lessee or lessees.2. Premises No. 98, Manicktolla Main Road. Calcutta (hereinafter called the said premises'), is one of the properties of the plaintiff deity. This is a very big and valuable property consisting of 40 bighas of land. On the high land of the said premises facing the road there is a two storied building including temple. Nat Mandir, feeding house of the poor, charitable dispensary Jheel, tanks and there is also open low land. The plaintiff deity was installed in the Tha-kur Bari in the said premises. In or about 1948, the said premises was requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal. After the requisition the plaintiff deity was located in another debutter prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›