Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kolkata Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.010 seconds)

May 29 1956 (HC)

Kiriti Bhushan Saha Mandal Vs. Tarubala Dasi

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-29-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal511,61CWN572

..... a right. (3) 'under-tenant' means a person who has acquired a right to hold non-agricultural land for any of the purposes provided in this act either immediately or mediately under a tenant and includes also the successors in interest of persons who have acquired such a right.' 14. the definition in section 2(5) is very wide. literally read .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1956 (HC)

Promode Lal Moitra Vs. Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-12-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal164,61CWN11

sinha, j. 1. the facts in this case are as follows: the petitioner is a resident of baranagore, which is within the jurisdiction of the baranagore municipality. for the purposes of the general election of the said municipality, fixed on 11-3-56, the final electoral roll of the said baranagore municipality was published under the election rules made under the bengal municipal act, 1932 and the petitioner's name appears as a male voter in ward no. 3. the respondent no. 3, amar mazumdar is also a recorded voter in the same ward. for the purposes of the said election, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 filed their respective nomination papers with the respondent no. 2, who is the chairman of the municipality. the nomination and registration of candidates standing in an election held under the bengal municipal act, 1932, are governed by a set of rules framed by the government of bengal, under powers conferred by section 44 of the said act. rule 17 lays down that not less than 45 days before the election day the commissioners shall fix for the nomination of candidates, a date which shall not be less than 35 days before the election day. on or before the date of nomination, every candidate for election is to file his nomination paper in the prescribed form and in accordance with the prescribed formalities, with the chairman. the chairman then publishes a notice fixing the time and date of the scrutiny of the nomination paper, and on the date so fixed, scrutinises the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1956 (HC)

Asgar Ally and Co. and ors. Vs. Vuppala Satyanarayana and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal317

p.b. mukharji, j.1. this is an appeal from the judgment of the learned trial judge dismissing the suit on a preliminary point of jurisdiction.2. the two reasons given by the learned judge for dismissing the suit are: (1) that no part of the fraud alleged in the plaint arose within the jurisdiction of this court and (2) that the fact that execution of the decree obtained in suit no. 48 of 1949 of the subordinate judge's court at vizagapatam by this court after the same had been transferred to this court for execution was not sufficient to attract jurisdiction of the court.3. the material facts of this case may be briefly stated. the defendants instituted a suit against the plaintiffs being suit no. 48 of 1949 in the court of the subordinate judge at vizagapatam for the recovery of rs. 98,864-1-4 with interest. in fact defendant vuppala satyanarayana being the defendant no. 2 in this case sued alleging himself as the head and manager of the joint family property purporting to consist of himself, his sons and grandsons. he obtained an ex parte decree from the subordinate judge's court of vizagapattam in that suit on the 21st of december, 1949. thereafter, the decree 'was transferred to this court for execution and in fact applications in execution were made in this court. two applications were made. one was for attachment of the sum of rs. 2,500 payable by mohammad osman bros. to the judgment-debtor firm in suit no. 3544 of 1950 (asgar ally and co. v. mohammad usman bros.) now .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1956 (HC)

Hem Chandra Sen Gupta and ors. Vs. the Speaker of Legislative Assembly ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-17-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Cal378,60CWN555

ordersinha, j.1. there are four petitioners in this application. one of them is a sitting member of the west bengal legislative assembly. the other three describe themselves as 'citizens of west bengal', by which they undoubtedly mean citizen of the indian union residing in the state of west bengal. the union of india and the state of west bengal have been made party respondents (no. 4 and no. 2). the other respondents are, dr. bidhan chandra roy, the chief minister of west bengal (no. 3) and the speaker of the west bengal legislative assembly (no. 1).the prayers in the petition are all-embracing. they seek for the issue of a medley of high prerogative writs, including the writs of mandamus, certiorari and quo-warranto. they seek to restrain the chief minister from functioning or drawing his salary, to injunct the speaker from presiding over the legislature, and generally to paralyse the administration of the state interalia by stopping recourse to the consolidated fund.at the hearing, however, the scope of the application has been considerably scaled down. by and large, it may be said that the petitioners would rest content if the chief minister is restrained from pursuing a notice he has caused to be given in the assembly, of moving a resolution approving of the proposal for the union of the states of west bengal and bihar, and if the union of india is restrained from bringing or initiating any bill or legislation in parliament for the purposes of uniting the two states. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1956 (HC)

State of West Bengal Vs. Brindaban Chandra Pramanik and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-24-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal44,61CWN27

p.n. mookerjee, j. 1. to the respondents' claim for compensation (rs. 7,253/10/-) for one thousand maunds and twenty seers of paddy, requisitioned in 1944 by the then province of bengal under rule 75a of the defence of india rules, three technical defences were raised by the province of west bengal which, was made the sole defendant in the suit, brought in december, 1948. the merits of these defences have to be considered in the present appeal.2. the first two defences went to the root of the respondents' (plaintiffs') right of action --one attacking the maintainability of a suit of this nature, and the other raising the bar of limitation. the third defence denied the liability of the defendant, the province of west bengal, or for die matter of that, of the present state of west bengal, for the plaintiffs' claim in view of the transitional indian independence (rights, property and liabilities) order, 1947, which admittedly governs the rights and liabilities of the parties before us. there was also a defence, taken in the written statement, under section 80, civil p. c., but it was not pursued beyond the stage of pleadings.3. the requisition of the paddy was admitted. its receipt or delivery to the appropriate authorities of the then province of bengal was also admitted. it was admitted further that compensation for the requisitioned paddy had been determined under clause 4 of rule 75a of the defence of india rules at rs. 7/4/- per maund which tallied with the amount of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1956 (HC)

Raliance Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-22-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal151

ordermallick, j. 1. this is an application for leave to revoke a submission. the language of paragraph (a) of the notice of motion is not really happy and mr. deb rightly pointed out that the only order that can be passed is granting leave to the petitioner to revoke the submission.2. the parties hereto entered into a contract whereby the petitioner was to manufacture and supply packing boxes to the respondent at a particular price. the respondent was under obligation to arrange for the release of timber and from materials required for the fabrication of the packing boxes. the contract is evidenced by the acceptance of tender as is usual in the case of government contracts and it contains the usual condition to be found in government contracts in what is known as form no. wsb133. the obligation of the government to release and supply timber and iron materials required for the purpose of fabrication of boxes is evidenced by a letter dated september 6, 1944. the schedule to the acceptance of tender expressly states that the acceptance confirms the said letter dated september 6, 1944. the contract contains an arbitration clause.3. pursuant to the above contract the government released and supplied' timber and iron materials required for the fabrication of packing boxes and the petitioner manufactured and delivered to the government the contract goods. the petitioner was fully paid the price of the goods in terms of the contract even though the government, in its turn, was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1956 (HC)

Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Dalhousie Holdings Ltd. an ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-14-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal293

p.b. mukharji, j.1. this appeal is a lively example of the struggle of now ideas in the old habits of thought. the new idea is the amalgamation of two companies by special statute of parliament. the old habits of thought are the company law notions of amalgamation. two companies coalesced in a strange unfamiliar setting. this is no ordinary amalgamation. an ordinance followed by an act of parliament blessed this union. the impact of this special statute is great on the familiar company law under the companies act with its set patterns for amalgamation and the classical notions or impropriety of a company trafficking in its own share and obtaining its own shares leased on the old inheritance bequeathed by the house of lord's dispensation in trevor v. whithworth (1887) 12 ac 403 (a). the struggle is keep and hard. the issue is 'whether the new ideas will succeed or the old habits of thought will prevail. 2. the principal actors in the scene are two limited companies, one the indian iron and steel company limited and the other the steel corporation of bengal limited known respectively in the industrial world as the iisco and the scob and both managed by the same managing agents martin burn ltd. the president of india promulgated an ordinance, the iron and steel companies amalgamation ordinance on the 29th october 1952 in respect of these two companies. this was followed by the from and steel companies act, 1952, on the 29th december, 1952. there is no material difference between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1956 (HC)

Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. Vs. J.K. Eastern Industries Private Lt ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-09-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Cal658,60CWN957

orderp.b. mukharji, j. 1. this is an application by bengal and assam investors ltd. under section 186, companies act of 1956. it seeks an order that the extra-ordinary general meeting of the respondent company j. k. eastern industries private ltd. required of the petitioner to be called in pursuance of requisition dated 5-6-1956 be called and held and conducted in such manner as this court thinks fit and proper and that for the purpose of the same such ancillary and consequential directions be given as this court may think necessary or expedient including directions regarding the date, time and place of the meeting to be held, appointment of an independent chairman for the meeting, deposit of proxies with such chairman and all such other directions modifying or supplementing the operation of the provisions of the com-panies act and of the companies articles relating to the calling, holding or conducting of the meeting. the applicant also seeks for an order that at the meeting the resolutions mentioned in the re-quistion notice annexed to the petition marked 'b' be considered and if thought fit be passed with or without modifications. the further order sought by the applicant is that! the respondent company must be directed to comply with the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 284, companies act, 1956. 2. before i discuss the implications of an application under section 186, companies act, 1956, it would be necessary to state a few facts for the better .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1956 (HC)

Panchu Gopal Sadhu Khan and ors. Vs. Kunja Behari Goswami and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-30-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal150

1. this second appeal involves the construction of a will executed by one madan mohan adhikary who died on 9th aswin, 1326 b.s., leaving widow rangadebi dassi. the will was executed on 30th bhadra, 1326 b.s.2. the plaintiffs claim title to 8 annas share in three rooms -- a pucca room on the ground floor and two other rooms with corrugated iron sheet roofs. they also claim title to a passage for ingress and egress. their case is that by the said will of 30th bhadra, 1326 b.s. the testator gave only a right of residence to a man called gostho, being the son of a distant nephew of the testator and after gostho's death to his direct descendants. according to the plaintiffs, by the will concerned, should gostho die without any children or the descendants of gostho should cease to exist, the property concerned would revert to the testator's wife. it is no longer disputed that the plaintiffs have title to the property concerned, subject to such right of residence as was given to gostho and his children or heirs, as the case may be. defendant no. 1 has been proved to be an heir of gostho. the controversy is whether by the will concerned the testator gave a right of residence to gostho and his heirs or to gostho and his direct descendants. both the courts have held that under 'the terms of the will a right of residence was given to gostho and his heirs and that that being so, defendant no. 1 is entitled to be in possession of the property concerned.3. mr. chaudhury on behalf of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1956 (HC)

Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. Vs. S.P. JaIn and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-04-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Cal244

ordersinha, j.1. these four matters have been heard together and the questions of fact and law are common. the facts are briefly as follows:--2. the petitioner in all these applications is a partnership firm duly constituted under the indian partnership act. it is stated that' the firm was established as early as 1894 and has continued all along, except for reconstitution of the personnel from time to-time, with the death or retirement of a partner and/or admission of a new partner or legal heir of a deceased partner. it appears also that the partnership deed was accordingly changed from time to time. a partnership deed was executed on or about november 14, 1949 and another on or about july 2, 1953. the latest partnership deed is dated 31st august 1954. in these applications we are concerned with the income-tax assessment years 1950/51, 1951/52, 1952/53 and 1953/54. for all these years, the firm has been assessed as a registered firm, that is to say, registered under the indian income-tax act. in other words, it was registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act and assessed as a registered firm in accordance with section 23 (3) read with section 23 (5) (a) of the said act, the registration of a firm is for the period of one year on each occasion, and the registration had been renewed from year to year until on or about september 30 1955 an order has been passed by which renewal of registration has been refused. the petitioner firm has filed an appeal under section .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //