Kolkata Court June 1972 Judgments
Kothari Trading and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal466
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. 1. This Rule has been obtained against theJudgment of the Small Cause Court,Sealdah. delivered on the 27th April. 1971in S. C. C. Suit No. 1061 of 1970. Twoconsignments of 145 Bags of Sugar belonging to the plaintiffs were booked on April1, 1968 under N/R No. 297704 and onMay 2, 1968 under R/R. No. 847875 fromBiswas and Bazpur respectively on theNorth Eastern Railway. The goods wereto be delivered at Kantapukur on theEastern Railway. The plaintiff allegedthat there was shortage of 530.200 Kgs.in the first consignment and 414.600 Kgs,in the second consignment due to thenegligence of the Railway Administra^tion. For the first consignment the plaintiff claimed Rs. 877.27. For the secondconsignment the plaintiffs claim forRs. 792-52. The Railway Administrationpaid to the plaintiff Rs, 731.22 in respectof the first consignment and Rs. 663.68 inrespect of the second consignment. Theplaintiff instituted the suit for recoveryof the balance of Rs. 146.05 for the firstcon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Narayani Devi Vs. Tagore Commercial Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal401
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,000/- due on account of principal and Rs. 3915/- as damages in respect of interest due and for further damages. The defendant No. 1 Tagore Commercial Corporation Ltd. has virtually closed down its business and accordingly, the plaintiff seeks to claim relief mainly against the defendant No. 2, the guarantor who is Maharaja Prabinrendra Mohan Tagore Bahadur.2. A formal agreement, between the plaintiff's husband one Nagendra Lal Saha, since deceased, and the defendant company as the principal debtor and the said Maharaja Prabirendra Mohan Tagore Bahadur as the guarantor, was entered into on or about October 5, 1951.3. The plaintiff's husband, the said Nagendra Lal Saha, held several shares of the face value of Rs. 40,500/- in Messrs. L. C. Saha Limited. By the said contract it was agreed, inter alia, that the plaintiff's husband will sell off his said shares in favour of the defendant No. 1 in consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Asmi Pramanik Vs. Vice-chancellor, Burdwan University and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal482,76CWN787
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. The petitioner in this case appeared in B. A. Part II Examination of 1971 of the Burdwan University. The marks he obtained in the said examination would be evident from the following table :--EnglishBengaliHistoryPoliticalScienceAdditional-GeneralScience.Total Marks200200300300100Marks obtained686610011050Total marks of elective subjects & aggregate-344.2. On the service of the rule the University authorities have entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition disputing the contentions made in the petition and also opposing the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the writs. It was contended that Regulation 7 provides the conditions for qualifying for the Part II and Degree examinations. The conditions are securing 33% marks in each subject and 35% marks in the aggregate, both in the elective subjects. Regulations 18 and 19 make it clear that the marks in excess of 33% in the additional subject is to be added to the aggregate of successful candidat...
Tag this Judgment!Linotype and Machinery Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC246(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in England. It has its works at Altringham, Cheshire, England and it manufactures linotype machines at its said works. The petitioner claims that its office at Calcutta is a branch office. On or about 1st March, 1956 and 30th April, 1956, the Government of India, through the Deputy Controller, Stationery, Calcutta, placed two orders upon the petitioner for sale and supply to the Manager, Government of India Press, New Delhi, of certain linotype machines at the prices and on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said orders. On or about 30th November, 1955, the Controller of Stores, Punjab, Jullundur City, placed an order with the petitioner for sale and supply of linotype machines to the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Chandigarh, at the price and on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The petitioner has claimed that pursuant to the said three orders, the goods were packed at the works of t...
Tag this Judgment!Hirendra Nath Bakshi Vs. Ram Jauhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal48
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J.1. This is an interlocutory application for injunction restraining the respondent No. 2, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinatfer called the L. I. C.) and its servants, agents, representatives, assigns, employees or otherwise from giving effect to or implementing the notice dated April 1 1972 and the enquiry report dated April 19, 1971 in any manner whatsoever pending the disposal of this suit. The notice dated April 1, 1972 is a show cause notice. By this notice the L. I. C. is calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the L.I.C.2. This show cause notice is given on the findings of the report of the enquiry officer dated April 9, 1971 that the petitioner is guilty of getting a cheque dated November 11, 1966 drawn by the L. I. C. in favour of the respondent No. 1 Shreeram Jauhar for Rs. 1,323.10 encashed through his personal bank account and misappropriating the proceeds of the cheque. On this finding, of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Khanta Moni Saha Vs. Shyam Chand Pramanick (Saha)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal112,76CWN897
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant against an appellate judgment and decree affirming the decree of the trial Court.2. The respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant who is his widowed sister from the suit, property on the ground of revocation of licence to use and occupy a portion of the disputed Property. The respondent's case, briefly. was that as the only son and legal heir he inherited the disputed property along with the other properties left by his father under the Dayatahaga School of Hindu Law who died intestate on 13-11-1936 to the exclusion of his widowed mother and married daughters including the present respondent who had no right of inheritance. The appellant after her husband's death with her two minor daughters was given shelter by him. in a portion of the disputed residential house left by the father. She was thus a lic-encee in respect of the portion of the house in her occupation but although she had no difficulty because of her daughters be...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Mazumdar Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ127
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this Rule is the detention of the detenu Dilip Kumar Mazumdar, alias, Mona under an order dated October 19, 1971, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in the exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The impugned order recites that the Commissioner was satisfied that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention rests on two grounds which are set out hereunder:(1) On 28.6.71 at about 11.45 hrs. you along with your associates Rathindra Kumar Sinha of 17/A. Simla St. and others, all being armed with bombs created a great disturbance on Tarak Pramanick Road in between premises Nos. 146 and 158A with a view to terrorise the locality. The incident led to the closure of shops, suspension of vehicular traffic and a widespread panic shrouded the area...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Subarnarani Mullick and anr. Vs. Bejoy Kumar Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal8
ORDERHazra, J.1. This is an application for an order that the terms of settlement being annexure 'B' to the petition be filed and a decree may be passed in accordance with the terms of settlement. This application has been made under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant No. 1 Bejoy Kumar Daw, under the following circumstances.This partition and administration suit was instituted on February 7, 1961. During the pendency of the suit all parties agreed to settle the suit and on August 14, 1971 a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other. Under this agreement defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were declared as the sole and absolute owners of premises No. 11, Beniapara Lane, Calcutta-35 in equal shares and that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest thereto. This agreement is admitted by all parties to this suit.2. The petitioner's case is that after this agreement, on August 16, 1971 the defendants Nos. 1 & 2 cam...
Tag this Judgment!West Bengal Financial Corporation and anr. Vs. Gluco Series Private Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal268
Hazra, J.1. The petitioner West Bengal Financial Corporation is a body corporate established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Act, LXIII of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner No. 2 Shri Kalipada Chatterjee is an Officer of the West Bengal Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Financial Corporation). The respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent company).2. This application by the petitioner is under Sections 31 and 32 of the said Act. The prayer of the petitioner is for (a) sale of land, buildings, machinery and other assets mortgaged and charged in favour of the Financial Corporation, (b) ad interim order of attachment (c) ad interim order of injunction (d) for notice to be issued calling upon the respondent company to show cause why the ad interim orders of attachment and injunction should not be made absolute, (e) if the respondents fail t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Prosad Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal465
Amaresh Roy, J. 1. This Is an application under Art, 133(1) (a), (b) & (c) of the Constitution of India, and it arises out of an appeal that was disposed of by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court composed of by my learned brother the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amiya Kumar Mookerji sitting with the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. N. Mookeriee. P. N. Mooker-3ee, J. has left this Court on superannuation. This application has been assigned to this Bench by my Lord the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by an order dated 19th April. 1972.2. The application arises out of a proceeding for acquisition of land under the Defence of India Act. Property. sought to be acquired comprised land and structures thereon. The area of the land wtas 1 bigha 10 cottash and 14 Chs. The Collector's offer was at the rate of Rupees 500/- per cottah for the land and Rupees 30,394/- for the structures. The total offer made by the Collector came to Rs. 48093,02 paise. The claimant claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cottah fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »