Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal524,138Ind.Cas.852
1. This is an appeal from a decree passed in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage. One Upendra Kishore Roy Choudhuri used to carry on business as a photo-engraver, printer and block-maker under the name and style of U. Ray and Sons at premises No. 100 or 100-A (both the numbers are indiscriminately used in the documents as well as in the oral evidence in this case, as meaning one and the same premises), Gurpar Road. After his death his three sons, on 8th December 1920, borrowed from one Surendra Nath Dey war bonds of the face value of Rs. 16,100 and by way of security for the repayment of the said debt with interest mortgaged in hiss favour the goodwill and stock-in-trade of the business of U.Ray and Sons including all plants, machineries, fittings and furniture etc., used in or to be brought in the said business and in any subsidiary business carried on in connexion therewith. The mortgage was in the form of a simple mortgage with power to the mortgagee to realize his dues by sale of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal265,137Ind.Cas.430
Jack, J.1. In this case a Rule has. been issued on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the District Judge in appeal and the order of the Munsif of the Second Court at Bankura, vacating an order setting aside a sale, and confirming the sale should not be set aside. The property in question was sold in execution of a decree on 17th April, and the sale was set aside on deposit by the petitioner of the decretal amount under Section 174, Ben. Ten. Act, on 8th May and the order now objected to is an order cancelling the order setting aside the sale, on an application for review made by the auction, purchaser under Order 47, Rule 1. The sale-was set aside on the ground of the discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced by the auction purchaser at the time when the order setting aside the sale was passed. The new and important matter consisted of a judgment and decree dismissing a suit by the plaintiff, to establish his title to the land in suit. In that sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1931Cal729
Rankin, C.J. 1. The rule issued in this case has reference to the year of assessment, 1929-30 and the year of account in the case of these assessees was the Ram-navami year 1985. The assessees are an unregistered firm whose principal place of business is Calcutta but who have a branch in Cawnpore and three branches at Bhagalpur.2. On 26th July 1929, the Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, issued a notice under Section 22 (2), Income-tax Act, requiring the assessees to furnish by 6th September a return of their total income for the previous year. In September the assessees put in a petition to the effect that the accounts from their mufassil branches had not as yet been received and were given time up till 20th October to submit their return, In October they filed another petition asking for further time on the ground that their accounts had not yet been adjusted by reason of some discrepancies in the trial balance of their branch accounts. This petition was on 25th October rejected so that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal563
Suhrawardy, J.1. In these applications in revision the petitioner, the Official Receiver, prays that the decrees passed by the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated 23rd August 1921, in two settlement appeals be amended in the way suggested. The petitioner made several applications before the settlement officer under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent, but we are concerned with only two of those cases. As the decision in one case will govern the other I will deal with Settlement Case No. 2237 of 1919 in which 110 khatians wore involved. The defence of the tenants was that their holdings were mukarrari and that the rents were not liable to be enhanced, either under Section 52 of the Act, on account of increase in area, or under Section 30-B for increase in the price of the staple food-crops. The assistant settlement officer allowed enhancement of rent in some cases under Section 52 which was not challenged in the appeals and we are not concerned with it at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal343
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appeal must be allowed. The question is whether the order of 17th February 1931 should be set aside.2. There were two cross-suits and the appellant before us was a member of a firm which was the plaintiff in one suit and the defendant in the other. The name of the firm is Raj Kishore Prosad Rajendra Prosad and the appellant before us is Rajendra Prosad.3. It seems that the suits were in the Peremptory list on 17th February before Buckland, J., and it further seems that an application under Schedule 2, Civil P. C, was put in signed by the attorney of this firm Raj Kishore Prosad Rajendra Prosad, and also signed, I think, by the partner Raj Kishore. Rajendra Prosad says that he was not at any time informed of nor was his consent obtained to any proposal that the suits would be referred to arbitration. He says therefore that this order is bad both under Schedule 2, Civil P. C, and under the general law. Whether it is quite in consonance with the modern cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal521
1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Alipur, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of money due on an overdraft account. The plaintiffs are a banking corporation, and the defendant is a customer of theirs who had transactions with them ever since 1914.2. There is no controversy between the parties as regards the advances which were made. The plaintiffs' claim as regards interest rests upon: first an agreement to pay compound interest on overdrafts with monthly rests at 1 per cent per mensem above the Bengal Bank rate, subject to an enhancement of 2 per cent per mensem on resolution being passed: by the plaintiffs to that effect and with a minimum of 7 per cent per annum; and second, on a resolution passed by the plaintiffs in December 1920, enhancing the-said rate of interest to that effect to take-effect from 1st January 1921. The plaintiffs had a further claim for realizing their dues upon the basis of an alleged collatera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal268
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur by which the learned Judge had dismissed the plaintiff's application for a decree under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code. There were two defendants in the suit, the mortgagors who executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1908. One of these, namely, defendant 1, had made a number of payments on account of the mortgage and had made endorsements in respect thereof on the bond stating that on account of interest these amounts were being paid. These payments continued right down to the year 1323. On 10th July 1920 the plaintiff instituted a suit upon the mortgage and thereafter having obtained a decree purchased the mortgaged property on 16th June 1922 and obtained sale certificate therefore on 25th July 1922. Thereafter on 24th November 1924, the plaintiff made the application under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code. The learned Judge refused the application in so far as defendant 1 was concerned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal271,137Ind.Cas.46
1. The plaintiff Ram Lakhmi is one of the daughters of one Basiram Dhupi by his first wife. Defendant 1 Joy Lakshmi is Basiram's daughter by his second wife Mani Dhupini. Plaintiff's mother died first, then died Basiram in July 1904. Govinda Dhupi, father of defendants 2 and 3, was a brother of Basiram. In November 1904 Mani Dhupini executed a deed of partition in favour of Govinda admitting that the properties in suit belonged to Basiram and Govinda in equal shares. In 1917 defendant 1, Joy Lakshmi, instituted a suit in the Munsif's Court at Munshigunj, against Govinda and Mani and another person to whom Govinda had sold some of the properties; and she impleaded the plaintiff Ram Lakhmi in that suit as pro forma defendant. She alleged that Govinda had no share in the properties, that the deeds of partition and sale were fraudulent and collusive and that the same were not binding on her. Govinda's defence in that suit was that he had an 8 annas share in the properties and the deeds cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal303
Rankin, C.J.1. The appellant Doyal Sarkar sued the principal respondents in 1922 for possession of certain lands and in the trial Court obtained a decree on 30th November 1922 for possession of the lands claimed and for the sum of Rupees 49-8-6 for costs. Respondent 1 appealed from that decree and on 14th January 1924, the appellate Court varied it by disallowing the plaintiff's claim to five bighas out of the suit lands and by reducing the costs recoverable by the plaintiff in re3pect of the proceeding in the trial Court to Rs. 36-7-9. In the meantime, in 1923, the plaintiff levied execution upon the trial Court's decree and in execution of the decree for costs put up to sale and himself purchased on 5th June 1923, two jotes of the defendants. The jote first sold fetched Rs. 35 and the second joto Rs. 15. In 1925 the defendants applied to the trial Court under Section 144, Civil P. C, asking for restitution not only in respect of the five bighas of land as to which they succeeded in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal492
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,330, on account of 95 bundles of mangoes consigned to the Madras Southern Mahratta Railway at Kalahasti Station for delivery at Howrah, a station on the Bengal Nagpur Railway. Instead of delivering the man-f.;oo8 at Howrah the Bengal Nagpur Railway sold them by auction at Bitarani Road Station as a breach of the line occurred owing to floods and it became impossible to deliver them at Howrah before they had wholly deteriorated. The price thus obtained was only Rs. 168-4-0. The mangoes were consigned under risk note in Form B which makes the railway company only liable for deterioration or damage due to misconduct of the servants of the railway administration. The question therefore for decision in this suit is to what extent, if at all, the loss incurred by the plaintiffs was due to misconduct of the railway servants.2. The mangoes were consigned as follows: 26 bundles on 28th July; 32 bundles on 29th July; 25 bundle...
Tag this Judgment!