Kolkata Court February 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Marybong and Kyel Tea Estate Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas802(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 391, 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation between the petitioner companies and for various orders as stated in the prayers of the petition.2. The facts of the case shortly are that the petitioner No. 1, Marybong & Kyel Tea Estate Ltd., was incorporated in the United Kingdom on the 20th of April, 1916, under the English Companies Acts, 1908 and 1913, in the name and style of Kyel Tea Estate Ltd. The registered office of thepetitioner No. 1 is situate at 37, Mincing Lane, London E.C., and its principal place of business in India is situate at No. 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The petitioner No. 2, Birpara Tea Co. Ltd., was incorporated in India and has been and still carrying on business of growing, manufacturing and sale of tea since its incorporation. Several companies, namely, Killcott Tea Co. Ltd., Gungaram Tea Co. Ltd., Bunglee Rungliot Tea Co. Ltd., New Cinnato...
Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Subashini Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Cal321
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This is an application for certificate to enable the appellant petitioner to prefer an appeal against our judgment and Order D/- 10-7-70. We need not for brevity's sake over again decide (recite) facts of the case for these would appear from our judgment. The appeal was preferred by the present petitioner Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. against an Award of compensation for a sum of Rs. 24,300/- in favour of the respondent Sm. Subahsini Roy who was the mother of the victim who died as a result of motor accident. The Tribunal found on evidence that the son of the respondent was injured and died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the car involved. In the appeal before us the correctness of this finding as also the quantum of compensation was challenged by the appellant petitioner. An objection was taken, however, on behalf of the respondent as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that it was not open to the appellant to dispute the correctness of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›