Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury vs Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho on 19 November, 1947

Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 September, 1950

21. My learned brother has quoted in full the agreement of 23.6-1950. I agree with his conclusion that that agreement was a contract between the parties, and not an undertaking to the Court. The distinction between an agreement with the sanction of the Court superadded to it, and an undertaking to the Court on the faith of which the Court sanctions a particular course of action or inaction is not easy to define or determine ; much will depend on the circumstances in which the agreement is made, and the words in which it is expressed to embody the intention of the parties : (see the observations in Nisa Kanto v. Saroj Bashini, A. I. R. (85) 1948 Cal. 294 : (49 or. L. J. 567). The agreement in this case did not result in any order of the Court, except disposal of the application without consideration of merits and a termination of the interim order of injunction. It saved "whatever right the parties may have in respect of the matters in dispute" (see the opening clause of the agreement). I accept Mr. P. R. Das's contention that this opening clause does not mean that the points regarding which the parties definitely agreed in the four clauses of the agreement, are to be included in the saving clause, so as to unsettle what has been agreed to. I also accept his argument as to the meaning of Clause 2 of the agreement ; namely, that though affirmatively put, it implies the negative and means that the District Board shall not take possession of the undertaking till the purchase is legally completed. Even accepting the aforesaid contentions, I do not think that the agreement goes beyond a contract between the parties on which the Court disposed of the application without granting any order of injunction. Of course, the formal order of disposal is there, but that does not convert the agreement into an undertaking to this Court. It is worthy of note that the order of 23-6-1950, as recorded, states clearly -- "It is agreed to by the parties etc." There is nothing to suggest that there is an undertaking given to the Court on the faith of which the Court is sanctioning a particular course of action or inaction. Mr. Das has con. tended that on the basis of the agreement the Court refrained from deciding the case on merits, and this would bring the agreement within the category of an undertaking on the faith of which the Court sanctioned a particular course of inaction, that is, refrained from deciding the case on merits, I agree that the Court refrained from deciding the case on merits ; but that does not necessarily mean that the Court did so on the faith of undertaking given to the Court. If Mr. Das's contention is correct, then, every action which is dismissed on compromise, without decision on merits, will give rise to a proceeding in contempt on a breach of a term of the compromise. I do not think that that is correct in law.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Subhash Chand vs Ranjan Jain on 13 October, 2025

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 undertaking was embodied in the consent terms, it would show that the court had sanctioned the particular course and put its imprimatur on the consent terms. This Court agreed with the view expressed in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka [Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka v. Kapurchand Ltd., 1950 SCC OnLine Bom 12 : AIR 1950 Bom 336] in preference over the view expressed in by the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto Ray [Nisha Kanto Ray Chaudhuri v. Saroj Bashini Guha, 1947 SCC OnLine Cal 167 : AIR 1948 Cal 294] .
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Limited vs Cavinkare Limited And Ors. on 16 July, 2003

13. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Gupta did not dispute the proposition if it is found undertaking having been given clearly to the Court and there is wilful breach there of certainly, contempt proceeding will lie. Both the learned counsels have relied on the Division bench Judgment of this Court rendered in case of Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury v. Saroj Bashini Goho . In that case the Division Bench while upsetting the order of eviction of the learned single Judge on the fact found there was no undertaking given to the Court and it was given to the parties. In that case the appellant purported to settle the suit on compromise. The tenant/appellant gave undertaking, which was embodied in the written agreement to remove certan images installed in the suit premises. On the basis of this agreement the suit was decreed on compromise. The Division Bench of this Court did not accept the argument of the landlord that since undertaking recorded in the agreement between the parties, which was ultimately accepted by the Court by passing a decree should be read and construed as having given to the Court although there was no specific expression in the clause to whom undertaking was given. The Court held that in such a situation it could not be held that undertaking given to the Court rather it was given to the party. However, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment remains in later part of paragraph 20, which is quoted hereunder.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

Govind Kaur vs Hardeo on 6 July, 1981

The respondent failed to deliver possession on or before the first day of October, 1960. In an application by the petitioner for committal of the respondent for contempt, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the undertaking was given to the party and not to the Court and that therefore, there was no contempt. The learned Judge, after distinguishing Nisha Kanta Roy's case held that the undertaking was not between the parties inter se but was given to the High Court and there having been a clear breach of undertaking contempt of the High Court was committed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Indo-Keniyan Industrial ... vs M/S Metal Forgings (P) Limited on 20 March, 1986

In Nisha Kanto v. Saroj Bashini Goho, AIR 1948 Cal 294 : (1948 (49) Cri LJ 567) a suit was brought by the landlord against the lessee on the ground that the latter had installed certain image on the premises without the landlord's consent. The suit was compromised. Under the compromise the lessee gave an undertaking which was incorporated in the compromise as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardari Lal vs Ram Rakha on 11 May, 1984

The contra view taken by Harries, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto's case ((1948) 49 Cri LJ 567) (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respondent was dissented from. It was expressed that if his Lordship had considered that the expression "undertaking" had come to acquire a technical meaning and if he had considered that aspect of the case, he would not have come to the conclusion that the only way to construe the expression 'undertaking' was to give it its plain natural meaning. Three judgments of the Calcutta High Court, all delivered by Single Judges, undoubtedly, were noticed which have taken the view that an "undertaking" means an "undertaking to the court."
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka And Anr. vs Kapurchand Ltd. on 9 February, 1950

[8] In support of his contention, Mr. Desai has relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto v. Saroj Bashini, A. I. R. (35) 1948 Cal. 294 : (49 Cr. L. J. 567). In that case, a Division Bench consisting of Sir Trevor Harries C. J., and Mukherjea J., had to consider a similar question. There also reliance was placed upon the practice on the original side. And the learned Chief Justice expressed the opinion that the sooner the practice was stopped the better. According to the learned Chief Justice, if one of the terms of the compromise was that one of the parties should give an undertaking to the Court, then the compromise should make it clear that such was the case, and if it did not make it clear and the compromise merely stated that one of the parties "undertakes", then the ordinary construction must be given, and that is, a promise or a solemn promise given to the other party and not to the Court. Now, with very great respect to the learned Chief Justice, he seems to have taken the view that the word "undertake" must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. He has not considered at all as to whether, by long practice understood both by counsel and by Judges, the expression "undertaking" had come to acquire a technical meaning. I am sure, if he had considered that aspect of the case, he would not have come to the conclusion that the only way to construe the expression "undertake" was to give it its plain natural meaning. What is more, there are three judgments of the Calcutta High Court, all delivered by single Judges undoubtedly but all of them sitting on the original side and having experience of the original side practice, which have taken the view that an "undertaking" means an "undertaking to the Court."
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 38 - V Bose - Full Document

Sujaniram Daryaosingh vs Lal Shyamshah And Lal Bhagwan Shah And ... on 4 February, 1953

In recent times, dictionaries have been freely made use of by Courts in determining the meaning of various words occurring in statutes: See - 'Wamanrao Deorao v. Shrikumar Jaikumar' AIR 1946 Nag 42 (J): - 'Beohar Singh v. Commr of Income-tax' AIR 1948 Nag 228 (K); - 'Nisha Kanto v. Smt. Saroj Bashini' ; and - 'Harish Chandra v. Rex' AIR 1949 All 15 (M).
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next