The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday December 31 1906

The decsion of the learned Judge that the Company was entitled to the calls from the Defendant was based on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the Directors had in any wise authorized the Secretary to enter the transfers as he had done. [...] It seemed extravagant to suppose that he would have advanced the interests of the partnership by retiring from the fielil and declining to enter into a competition which actually had the effect of raising the price of the stands and so improving the value of the Sigma shares. [...] That the term fixed in the notice ran from the date of the notice and not from the date of receipt of the notice and that in this case the Petitioner could not complain that he had not reasonable time after the receipt of the notice to carry out the work within thd period fixed in the notice. [...] The result of the proceedings taken for the allotment of the compensation was that the present Defendants received the full amount of Rs. [...] It was contended that the lower Courts ought to have proceeded on the principle usually followed in awarding remissions in such Cases and that he ought to have fixed the amount to be remitted from the rent which would bear to the entire paid rent the same proportion as the gross rent on the land acquired bore to the gross rental of the whole area of the putni.