Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-23-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Cal210
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116 of the Patents Act from an order refusing an application for patent under Section 15(2) of the Patents Act. The facts of the case shortly are as follows :2. On the 4th September, 1972, the appellant filed an application for grant of patent in respect of an alleged invention relating to chemical process and products. Original objection was taken by the Controller of Patents to the said application on the ground that the complete specification filed related to more than one invention. Consequently the appellant filed a further application under Section 16 of the Patents Act in respect of an invention already disclosed in the complete specification filed in respect of the first mentioned application. The said application under Section 16 related to lobular Aluminium Chloride and was filed on the 80th October, 1975. The Controller's office objected to the said claims Nos. 1 to 8 of the said complete specification as being not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-03-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Cal536
ORDERMonjula Bose, J. 1. Non-delivery of two consignments of art silk piece goods covered by Railway Receipts Nos. 948503 and 948521, both dated Aug. 14, 1966 is the basis of the plaintiff's claim herein for Rs. 14,746.46 as damages against the Railways, as carriers represented by the defendant Union of India.2. It is alleged in the plaint that on Aug. 14, 1966 one R. Bhoggilal and Co., as agents of the plaintiff, delivered the said consignments to the Central Eastern Railway at Wadi Bandar Station, Bombay for carriage to Shalimar on the South Eastern Railways and there to be delivered to the plaintiff. It is alleged that on or about Sept. 17, 1966 and Oct. 3, 1966, the two Railway Receipts were duly endorsed in favour of the plaintiff within the original jurisdiction of this court. It is alleged further that the said goods were not delivered and/or were lost in transit and the plaintiff being deprived of its goods is entitled to be compensated by the defendant for the value thereof na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-10-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Cal374,82CWN894
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal dated Dec. 21, 1976 reversing on appeal an award of the Co-operative Development Officer and Arbitrator-II dated June 18, 1976.2. It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 in respect of shares in the Surendranath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as also the right, title and interest in Suit No. 22 Unit No. 1, East Block of the Society.3. The petitioner who is the widow of late Tapan Kumar Mitra claimed, with her mother-in-law, the suite as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased while his brother, the respondent No. 3 claimed the suite as also the shares of the deceased in the society on the basis of a nomination made in his favour by the deceased earlier under Section 69 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. The Arbitrator held that the heirs and legal representatives are entitled to the suite while the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-04-1978
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas611(Cal),82CWN774
Salil Kumar Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Ramendra Mohan Datta J., dated March 21, 1975 (see page 211 supra) whereby the application of the Registrar of Companies for winding up the company was dismissed.2. The respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as ' the company '), a public company, was incorporated on November 29, 1913, and the main objects for which the company was established as set forth in the memorandum of association are as follows :' 3(a) To construct, complete, equip and make ready for public traffic and to work, maintain and carry on a line of railway between the towns of Burdwan and Cutwa in the district of Burdwan in Bengal and to undertake the construction, completion and making ready for traffic of such line and to form junctions with the East Indian Railway and to pay for the plans and survey made of the railway to be constructed and the cost of providing and maintaining police for the protection thereof and to make arrangements w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-06-1978
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas296(Cal)
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. These three applications have been filed under Section' 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner-company) against the respondents, Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., Angelo Brothers Ltd., Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd., Ganapat Rai & Sons (1946) Ltd., Metal Craft (India) Ltd., Haridas Mundhra, Vijay Mundhra and several other persons. Respondent No. 1, Shalimar Tar Products (1935) Ltd., respondent No. 2, Angelo Brothers Ltd., respondent No. 3, Lodna Collieries Go. (1920) Ltd., respondent No. 4, Ganapat Rai & Sons (1946) Pvt. Ltd., and respondent No. 5, Metal Craft (India) Ltd., are hereinafter described respectively as Shalimar Tar, Angelo Brothers, Lodna Colliery, Ganapat Rai & Sons and Metal Craft. The three separate applications are considered and heard together as there are common questions of fact and law.2. The case of the petitioner-company may be briefly stated. The petitioner-company is one limited by share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-06-1978
Reported in : [1979]118ITR675(Cal)
Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are shortly as follows :The Fertilizer Corporation of India, a Government of India undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), embarked on a project designated Durgapur Fertilizer Project, where it was decided to erect an ammonia plant in Durgapur, West Bengal. With that object the Corporation entered into agreements in writing with two Italian technical concerns, namely, Montecatini Edition S.P.A., Milano (Italy) and Ansaldo S.P.A., Genova (Italy) (hereinafter referred to as 'Ansaldo'), inter alia, for obtaining technical know-how and guidance and for supply of various technical equipments, machinery and instruments as also services of technical personnel. In the agreement by and between the Corporation and Ansaldo dated the 31st August, 1966, it was, inter alia, stipulated as follows : '3.20.....Ansaldo would make available at the plant site competent technicians ...
Tag this Judgment!