Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Brindaban Chandra Pramanik And Anr. on 24 July, 1956

Council Of Institute Of Chartered ... vs S. Srinivasa Iyer on 25 January, 1960

11. Relying on State of West Bengal v. Brindaban Chandra, AIR 1957 Cal 44 at p. 53 the Counsel for the accountant has then argued that his client cannot be found guilty of any misconduct as he was acting honestly, and that he cannot be guilty of negligence because such a charge has never been framed against him. We do not think, having regard to the correspondence which passed between the accountant and the Bank's Managing Director that the omission to state what he had advised would be regarded as reasonable conduct. Nor do we see how an honest person would hesitate to state what he had assured himself to be the correct position. Therefore the conduct of the accountant before us cannot be held to be either reasonable or honest.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm Rati Ram ... on 28 August, 1958

Secondly, the object of Art. 2 is the protection of public officials, who, while bona fide purporting to act in the exercise of a statutory power, have exceeded that power and have committed a tortious act. The very language of the Article shows that it can be made applicable only when the cause of action is based on a tort. Rulings reported, as Rajputana Malwa Railway Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. Ajmere Municipal Board, ILR 32 All 491, and State of West Bengal v. Brindaban Chandra Pramanik, AIR 1957 Cal 44, also support the aforesaid view.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Sat Narain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 2 January, 1961

In State of West Bengal v. Brindaban Chandra Pramanik, AIR 1957 Cal 44, non-payment of compensation was the basic cause of action for the suit. Such non-payment could not be in pursuance of the Defence of India Act or the Rules or orders made thereunder. It was held that Section 17(2) of the Act was no bar to the maintainability of the suit and could not be pleaded in answer to the plaintiff's claim. The situation which has arisen in this case is somewhat similar.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hari Chand Madan Gopal And Others vs State Of Punjab on 6 October, 1972

In State of West Bengal v. Brindaban Chandra Pramanik ( 2 certain paddy was requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules during the Second World War by the Province of, West Bengal. The amount of compensation was assessed under rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. That amount was not paid by the Province of Bengal. After partition a suit was instituted against the Province of West Bengal. The High Court of Calcutta held that by virtue of cl. 10(2) of the Governor-General's Order, the Province of West Bengal was liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff whose paddy had been requisitioned. In that case also the High Court was not called upon to decide the question that arises before us. In the judgment there is no reference-to any Order made by the Governor of the Province of Bengal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 93 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document
1