Court : Kolkata
..... application has been filed. courts have a mandatory duty to refer parties to arbitration, and it has no jurisdiction to continue. in view of section 58 of the sale of goods act, 1930, no order can be passed. mr.rishad medora, the learned counsel representing the respondent no.40 submits that there has never been any exclusivity clause in ..... a clear breach of the implied negative covenant and a breach of implied covenant can be restrained by injunction although it may contain in a contract for the sale of goods. in the event such things happened, it would completely ruin the business of the plaintiffs and an action for damages would afford no protection and certainly no ..... agreements pleaded in the last 20 years.the parties have proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff no.1 shall act exclusively as a sole purchasing representative of the respondent nos.2 to 38 for procurement of goods and services from india and the petitioner no.1 in performance of the terms of the agreement have identified .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... plaintiff proves express malice. these are, broadly speaking, communications made in the cours.of legal, judicial or military duty for protection of common interest or for public good and reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings and proceedings at public meetings. when the defendant sets up the plea that the publication has a qualified privilege, the plaintiff ..... , the cause of action to recover the same arose on the date when he paid the amount and not on the date when he was ordered to pay sales tax. i fail to appreciate as to how this case helps the plaintiff. (32) in view of the aforesaid, i have no hesitation in holding that ..... were dispossessed in execution proceedings, their rights had been completely injured, and though their dispossession continued, it could not be said that the trustees were committing wrongful acts or acts of tort from moment to moment so as to give the plaintiffs/appellants a cause of action de die in diem. in my understanding, the aforesaid decision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... is a seal. this aspect of the matter was also considered by the assistant controller in its order very lucidly which reads as follows: the classification of goods is regulated by the third schedule framed under rule 10 of the designs rules 2001 as amended by (amendment) containers for rules the 2008. transport class ..... and not an article. original .. it if has been already anticipated it is not new or publication before registration defeats the proprietor s right to protection under the act. (niki tasha pvt. ltd. vs. faridabad gas gadgets p. ltd., air1985delhi136) the features of shape, configuration, pattern and ornament, when applied to an article are ..... designs and thereby not new or original. combination of known in other words, the cancellation was allowed in view of section 4 (c) of the designs act, 2000. the subject matter of dispute before the assistant controller was seal for packaging under class 09-07. the representation accompanying the registration of the petitioner consists .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. section 17, 18 and 24 of the act of 2006 are as follows: 17. recovery of amount due.- for any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under ..... in arbitration petition no.56 of 2013 (m/s.hindustan wires limited v. mr.r.suresh & anr.) and submits that, the micro, small and medium enterprises development act, 2006 does not negate an existing arbitration agreement between the parties. the council was wrong in issuing the writing dated march 17, 2016 by which the council had ..... competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. it seeks to make further improvements in the interest on delayed payments to small scale and ancillary industrial undertaking act, 1993. chapter v of the act of 2006 deals with delayed payments to micro and small enterprises. section 15 makes it a liability of a buyer to make payment to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... sign documents transferring to him freehold property owned by her by creating a mortgage with the right to sale the said property in appropriate proceeds. the point that arose therein was that if an agent committed a fraud while acting in cours.of the business, which he is authorized whether the principal can be responsible for the ..... the cours.of the servant s employment and, in the present case, their lordships are of opinion that, on the uncontradicted evidence, the conversion of the appellant s goods took place in the cours.of the employment of the respondent s servants. the decision rendered in haryana gramin bank & anr. (supra) is decided in somewhat similar ..... that the branch manager has committed fraud on the basis of an authority in cours.of the business and therefore the respondent cannot skip its liability to make good loss suffered by the petitioner. hypothetically, if this court proceeds that the suit filed by the respondent would ultimately go in its favour, yet this court does .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... lubricant is concerned the value of the said material are also derived applying the agreed coefficients on the agreed value of turnover, for other materials and pol and relying on good engineering practice adopted by ministry of irrigation government of india, river valley project (c-36).the claimant had adopted 20% of pol cost in its calculation for deriving the ..... regulating the procedure after the award. so far as the hearing of the merits is concerned and the decision contained in the award, the court has nothing to say, good, bad or indifferent. it has no right to review it or to consider it .. although the above decision was rendered in the context of the old 1940 ..... the 1996 act. the court is not hearing an appeal from the award. the recent decision of the hon ble supreme court in associated builders (supra) has also recognized the same principle. i do not find any of the grounds on the basis of which the said finding of the arbitrator could be disturbed. on the issue of sales tax the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... was concluded contract being agreement dated 11th may, 2005 exbt.-c pertaining to commission and other charges payable to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 for sale of coffee to russia and other cis countries. it is submitted by mr.aniruddha mitra learned advocate for the defendants that the document fashioned as agreement dated 11th ..... the previous agreement dated january 24, 2005 which provided inter alia, that the agreement will continue without ending of its validity under which the plaintiff has been acting as the agent of the defendant no.1 and is entitled to commission and other expenses as agreed. in accordance with the aforesaid agreements, the defendant no. ..... cis countries; mandatory injunction and other reliefs. plaint case the plaintiff carries on export-import business at no.3, pretoria street, kolkata-700 071 and has good and large customer based in russia and cis countries. on or about may 11, 2005 the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff entered into an agreement modifying .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... were indeed received by the railways. therefore, the dispute between the parties was this. [a].whether there was a valid contract for sale of the goods ?.; [b].whether supply was made according to this contract for sale ?.; [c].whether the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation ?. now, if the petitioner is able to prove his case ..... purchase order, then the calculation of a period of three years from the date of delivery of the goods under article 14 of schedule i of the limitation act, 1963 would have to exclude the period between the delivery of goods and the raising of bills because that would be counted as the credit period. very humbly and ..... : the claim no.1 of the claimant was in substance for price of goods sold and delivered. therefore, in terms of article 14 of the limitation act, the prescribed period of limitation would be three years from the date of the delivery of the goods. by merely indulging in fruitless correspondence the claimant cannot plead that this period .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... permission was granted by the mining authority to transport iron ore or other minerals to barsuan railway siding during the said period. the purported measurement of the goods allegedly lying at barsuan railway siding was taken in the absence of any representative of the petitioner no.1/company. the purported measurement was only arrived at ..... without complying with the principles of natural justice. g) the additional point taken on behalf of the petitioners.assuming but not admitting that the two indents were acted upon, the total amount of iron ore to be transported, dumped and thereafter loaded could not exceed 8000 mt. however, the stacking bill raised by the ..... the stacking charges. however, since no steps were taken by the petitioner no.1/company to liquidate the stacking charges, the railways have no option but to act in accordance with law.6) that the purported certificate of the deputy director of mines, koira dated 14th november, 2008 has little relevance since such certificate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... loaded a rake of iron ore fines at barsuna railway station under south-eastern railway for its delivery at vishakhapatnam port the destination station. the concerned authority booked goods of the petitioner in accordance with the route mentioned and terms and conditions specified in the rr . after payment of freight charge as calculated by the railways ..... due to it from them. this demand of alleged under-charge amount is claimed by the railways under the rationalisation scheme issued under section 71 of the act of 1989 read with special rates circular, both as amended from time to time and boards circular letter dated 22.03.2007. it is challenged by the ..... along with all the other three connected appeals together by this common judgment.4. appellant/petitioner no.1 bagadiya brothers pvt. ltd is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the company .) having its registered office at 402, maker chamber v, 221, nariman point, mumbai - 21. it is engaged in .....
Tag this Judgment!