Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2007Cal260,2008(1)ARBLR83(Cal),(2007)3CALLT424(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Execution Case No. 28 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has granted reliefs in terms of prayers in column 10 of the Tabular Statement enforcing a foreign award under the provisions of Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). This appeal was admitted by a judgment and order dated 19th September, 2003 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Seth and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sinha (as their Lordships then were) subject to the question of maintainability and preliminary objection. By this order no formal paper book was asked to be filed dispensing with other formalities and treating the application as informal paper book, however, liberty was granted to include additional papers in the informal supplementary pape...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal642
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mallick, J. on the 28th August, 1962 whereby he dismissed two applications for the appointment of a Receiver, one in respect of a Trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', and another in respect of a Trust Known as the Brojabala Trust. The applications were dismissed on a preliminary ground, namely, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the applications. The short facts are as follows: Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravartti of Hetampur created a trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', by a Deed of trust dated 11th August, 1887; and his wife Maharani Padma Sundari Debi created another trust called the 'Brojabala Trust' by a Deed of trust dated 27th February, 1895. These trusts related to various immoveable properties situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The trusts were created for various purposes including the Seva Puja of certain deities and for certain charitable p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1966Cal205
Mitter, J 1. The question before the Full Bench in this reference arises out of an application for a certificate under Article 138(1) of the Constitution in a proposed appeal from a decision of a division bench of this Court dated April 4, 1963 by which the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting specific performance of a contract for sale of a property in Calcutta was reversed. The decision of the division bench not being one of affirmance entitles the petitioner to a certificate as a matter of course if the valuation test laid down in the said article is salislied. The suit for specific performance was filed on February 13, 1945 on a contract which fixed the price of the premises No. 81, Girish Park North in Calcutta al Rs. 15,000. On March 25, 1940 this property was put up to sale at an auction and was purchased by the respondent No. 8 Dhone Krishna Daw for a sum of Rs. 24,000. The petitioner Brindaban Chandra Basak filed a suit on April 16, 1946 impleading all necessary par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1930Cal258,122Ind.Cas.197
Page, J.1. This is an originating summons by the plaintiff, taken out by his mother as next friend, in which the plaintiffclaims to be interested in the relief sought as the sole residuary legateeunder the will and codicils of his grandfather Gopal Chandra Sinha, for the purpose of determining the title to the property moveable and immovable of the testator. The originating summons is in the following form:Let the defendants Ashutosh Mukhorjee, Sadasiva Mitter and Khitindra Kumar Mitter, the executors of the said Gopal Chandra Sinha deceased, all of No. 9, Ghaulpati Lane, and the defendants Sashi Bhusan Sinha of No. 13-A, Teliparha Road, Khitish Chandra Sinha, since adjudged a lunatic, and Purna Chandra Sinha, the three sons of the said deceased, and the defendant Khoka Sinha, a minor grandson by son of the said deceased, and as such claiming or. having an interest in the latter's estate as a residuary legatee under his will and codicils, dated respectively 2nd March 1919, 2nd November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT412(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned Brother Sinha, J. in agreeing with the conclusions to the effect that the appeal in the instant case is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1 wish to state my own reasons therefor, as under:2. The matter has been referred to the Special Bench for considering the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M/s. Merchants of Traders (P) Ltd. v. M/S. Sarmon Pvt. Ltd.. reported in (1997)2 CAL LT 38(HC). By the said Judgment, the Division Bench held that the appeal preferred against an order of a learned single Judge of this High Court is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The learned single Judge by his order under appeal before the said Division Bench had granted conditional leave to defend the suit in terms of Order 37 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench had followed the ratio' of the earlier Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal Involves the question of the Jurisdiction of a single Judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act.)2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. The respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. It procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. According to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. It is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.3. In September 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant In (T.S. No. 361 of 1996) before the Second Munsiff at Allpore pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal367,(1997)1CALLT123(HC),100CWN562
ORDER1. This hearing arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the suit the plaintiff prays for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, and assignees etc. from in any way in fringing or attempting to infringe Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff; Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from in any way manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or advertising any toilet soap bearing the Trade Mark 'VIGIL' or any other trade mark and having the composition that is covered under and/or within the range of Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff. Delivery upon oath of all toilet soaps already manufactured and in possession, power and custody of the defendant No. 1 and/or the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and/ or their agents and servants that in any way infringe and/ or have been manufactured in accordance with the Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal338
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an umpire. The petitioner entered into a contract on 22nd/23rd Nov. 1982 by accepting the tender submitted by the respondent. The contract contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising out of the contract would be decided by arbitration. Disputes arose and reference was made to the joint arbitrators in accordance with the agreement. By a letter dt. 13-4-84 the arbitrators intimated the petitioner that they had received the statement of claim from the respondent and called upon the petitioner to submit its counter-statement on or before 2-5-84. The petitioner alleges that the joint arbitrators entered upon the reference without appointing an umpire. The petitioner by letter dt. 23-4-84 pointed out to the joint arbitrators that they did not appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and requested them to appoint the umpire. It is alleged that in spite of such n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
Tag this Judgment!