Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal576
Costello, J.1. This is an application made on behalf of a judgment-debtor Basant Kumar Chowdhury under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P. C., and to which the Sylhet Loan Co., Ltd., who were the judgment-creditors, are the opposite parties. The Company obtained a mortgage decree against the present applicant and his two brothers for a sum of Rs. 24,823-0-7, which decree is dated 9th June 1927. On 26th February 1931, the present opposite party sought to put the decree to execution in order to obtain payment of a sum of Rs. 28,307-14-7 which was the amount of the decree less a sum of Rs. 2,433-0-0 which had already linen recovered from the debtor. The decree-holders gave the value of the mortgaged properties as described in two schedules, as Rs. 21,307-0-0 and they also set forth that there was a claim in -expect of a mortgage decree obtained by another person as regards the lands mentioned in the first schedule, which decree was for the amount of six or seven thousand rupees. On 27...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal588
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 6 against the decision of the District Judge of Mymensingh by which the learned District Judge granted a decree to the plaintiffs and directed the document in question in the present suit to be registered in the proper office after it was duly presented for registration within 30 days from the date of his decree. It appears that one Ayesha Aktar Khatun executed a conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs who are her brother's sons by which she transferred the whole of her immovable properties to them for consideration of Rs. 500. The document was executed on 7th May 1925. Ayesha died on 10th May, that is within three days of the execution of the kabala. It was presented for registration on 1st June 1925 by one Md. Khalek who is defendant 3 to the present suit and who is the father of the plaintiffs and brother. and one of the heirs of Ayesha. He presented this document in his character as one of the representatives of Ayesha. Before the Registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal621
Rankin, C.J.1. In these cases, it appears that two insolvents of the name of Girish Chandra Seal and Manindra Chandra Seal were alleged by the Official Assignee to have executed within two years of their insolvency certain transfers which were not made for consideration or in good faith and the Official Assignee brought two motions before the learned Judge exercising insolvency jurisdiction on the original side to have it declared that these transfers were void as against him and for the consequential direction that the properties be made over to him as part of the estates of the insolvents for the benefit of their creditors. The person who had in each instance taken the transfer from the insolvent was one Gour Chand Mallik, and, so far as the appellant Umesh Chandra Seal is concerned, he had taken a transfer from Gour Chand Mallik on 17th March 1930, which was a substantial time after the adjudication order. Girish Chandra Seal was adjudicated on 3rd August 1927 and Manindra Chandra S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal185
Pearson, J.1. The petitioner is a pleader who was charged with defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. The Magistrate found that no case had been made out and dismissed the case under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The Sessions Judge however has set aside that order and has directed a further inquiry. This Rule was obtained on the ground that there being admittedly no malice or grudge or want of good faith, etc., the order for further inquiry was wholly illegal. The petitioner was a pleader for the defendant in a certain Title Suit No. 59 of 1930 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Howrah and it appears that during the cross-examination of one of the witnesses named Kshiroda Moyee Dasi, the present accused, asked the following question: 'Is there any rumor of scandal in the name of Hari's wife.' It is conceded for the purposes of the present ease that was an imputation of unchastity against the woman in question. It appears further that particular question was asked in the course of a commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal691
Rankin, C.J.1. This is an appeal by one Geoffrey Cornwallis Montogomery against an order of my learned brother Costello made in the winding up under an order of the Court of the Sikdar Iron Works Ltd. The company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court made in 1925 and, in August of that year one Mr. L. S. Bavin was appointed Official Liquidator by the Court. On 27th August, by an order made by consent of certain persons, Mr. Bavin was given all the powers conferred by Section 179, Companies Act, and was given liberty to carry on the business of the company for a limited time and to arrange for finance upon such terms as he should think fit. This order of 27th August was not unfortunately brought to the notice of the learned Judge who hoard the present application on the original side. In June 1927 the usual steps were taken by Mr. Bavin as the Official Liquidator for having the list of contributories settled by the Court on the 13th of that month. Notices appear to have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal629
Williams, J.1. The petitioner has presented two petitions under Section 115, Civil P. C., with regard to two suits decided in the Court of Small Causes.2. The petitioner holds certain lands at 28 Chittaranjan Avenue upon which certain huts were erected. One Ata Mahomed was the tenant of the land and owned the huts erected thereon. It is stated in the petition that1 he was the petitioner's tenant at all material times. Prior to 15th September 1930 a sum of money became due to the petitioner from his tenant on account of rent and taxes. The tenant was unable to pay and it was agreed between them in writing, on 15th September i930, that the tenant would not alienate the huts without the consent of the petitioner until the arrears were paid off. On 17th December 1930 the petitioner purchased the huts from Ata Mahomed for Rs. 3,200 made up of Rs. 1,503-14-6 on account of rent and taxes and Rs. 1,694-1-6 paid in cash. A receipt was given, but there was no conveyance. Subsequently the huts we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal660
Jack, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the learned President of the Tribunal, dated 17th August 1931, should not be set aside or revised or such other order passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The relevant portion of the order referred to is in the following terms:I have come to the conclusion that I should proceed with the task of investing the compensation money in the purchase of suitable landed property and accordingly, I direct that the application of Mr. Galstaun should be sent to the Collector for necessary inquiry regarding suitability of investment If the shebaits themselves have any suggestion to make regarding the investment of the money in the purchase of suitable landed property, they will receive from me due consideration. In the meantime, as no other properties have been offered for sale, except those by Mr. Galstaun they should be examined by the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal695
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case it appears that the respondent, Iswardas Agarwalla was the defendant in a suit and that the present appellants obtained against him an injunction of which the terms are somewhat important. The order was made on 6th February 1930 and the injunction which was to take effect upon service of the order on the defendant restrained him, his servants and agents from dealing with, disposing of or alienating any of the moveable or immovable properties belonging to him and mentioned in the said petition except in the usual course of business so far as the said moveable properties were concerned. The injunction is a form of injunction that is sometimes made under the provisions of Order 38, Civil P. C., and the question which is before us now is this: The defendant having been served very shortly after the date of the order, namely, 6th February, appeared and the injunction was dissolved on 5th March so that he suffered the disabilities of the injunction for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 139Ind.Cas.180
Jack, J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal and the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the learned President of the Tribunal, dated 17th August, 1931, should not be set aside or revised or each other order passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.2. The relevant portion of the order referred to is in the following terms:I have come to the conclusion that I should proceed with the task of investing the compensation money in the purchase of suitable landed property and accordingly, I direct that the application of Mr. Galstaun should be sent to the Collector for necessary inquiry regarding suitability of investment. If the shebaits themselves have any suggestion to make regarding the investment of the money in the purchase of suitable landed property, they will receive from me due consideration. In the meantime, as no other properties have been offered for sale, except those by Mr. Galstaun they should be examined by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal569
1. This is an appeal preferred by a judgment-debtor from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of 24-Pargannas on 24th July 1931. The circumstances under which the order came to be passed, briefly stated, are the following: There were execution proceedings, relating to a mortgage decree, which had been started upon an application filed by the decree-holders on 6th August 1930. The first objections that were put in on behalf of the judgment-debtor were filed on 15th September 1930. The objections related to an alleged adjustment of the decree, to the valuation as proposed to be inserted in the sale proclamation and to certain other matters relating to the formalities connected with the starting of the execution proceedings. On 2th April 1931, these objections were dismissed for default of appearance on the part of the judgment debtor. On 27th April 1931, the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 151 of the Code setting out the circumstances under which, he alleged, he was...
Tag this Judgment!