Kolkata Court July 1938 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lalit Mohan Dutt Vs. Krishnadhon Bandopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal166
Biswas, J.1. The appellant is defendant 2 in a mortgage suit. The suit was originally instituted against five defendants, and was for enforcement of a bond executed on 1st April 1915 to secure repayment of a sum of Rs. 10,000. The due date of repayment under the bond was at the end of one year. The suit was filed on 27th April 1929, when it is admitted, the claim to recover a personal decree against the mortgagors had already become barred. The mortgagee's remedy therefore lay only against the mortgaged properties. On 28th November 1930, the trial Court passed the usual preliminary decree against defendants 3, 4 and 5 only, but dismissed the suit against defendants 1 and 2, the reason for such dismissal being that so far as these two defendants were concerned, evidence of attestation of execution was defective, and also that the claim against them was time-barred. The plaintiff mortgagee appealed to this Court against this partial dismissal of the suit. The appeal being F.A. No. 105 of...
Province of Bengal Vs. Noor Ahmade and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal776
Biswas, J. 1. This is an application on behalf of Government for an order for recovery of court-fees in a pauper appeal which was disposed of by this Court sometime ago. The application purports to be made under Order 33, Rule 12, Civil P.C., which must be read for the present purposes along with Order 44, Rule 1. The facts shortly stated are these : The plaintiff brought a suit for damages for breach of a contract and he assessed his claim at Rs. 20,500. The suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge for a sum of Rs. 1500 only. Against that judgment there was an appeal filed by defendant 1 Messrs. T. & J. Broc. klebank Ltd. incorporated in Great Britain and having their agency office at 6 Lyons Range, Calcutta. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1500. There was also a cross-objection on behalf of the plaintiff which was valued at Rs. 19,000 being the difference between the amount claimed and the amount awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge-as damages. The appeal and the cross-obje...
Charu Chandra Basu and ors. Vs. Nritya Gopal Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal21
Jack, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of debutter title to certain properties, described in the plaint, which were alienated by some of the shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Sridhar Jew, who is plaintiff 1. The other shebaits were made pro forma defendants. The suit was decreed as regards the properties except properties Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 of Schedule 4. As regards these properties the suit was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground of limitation and the only question which arises in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation under Section 144, Limitation Act. The learned Judge has held that the period of limitation starts from the period at which delivery of possession in execution of the mortgage decree took place, whereas, for the appellants, it is contended that the period of limitation starts from the death of the last of the mortgagors. This took place in 1339 corresponding to 1932 and if the contention of the appe...
Satis Chandra Roy Chaudhury and anr. Vs. Rampada Chattapadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Cal861
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for money due upon a hisab. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant worked under him as a Tahsildar during the period 1326 to 1334 B. S. For the realisations of that period, the defendant signed a document admitting liability to the extent of Rs. 1291 odd. The plaintiffs based their claim upon this document. The defendant pleaded that he signed the document under undue influence and coercion. The Courts below have agreed in negativing this defence. The defendant also pleaded limitation. The Courts below have agreed in accepting this defence and so dismissing this suit. Hence this second appeal. The aforesaid document Ex. 1 contains items showing realisations yearly made by the defendant from 1326 to 1334 B. S. as credit against remittances yearly made as debit. Then there is a balance struck showing the amount as Rupees 1292-1-8 1/2 g. on the debit side. According to the evidence shown to us this amount was drawn up by an office...
Hare Krishna Maiti and ors. Vs. Gojendra Nath Hatoi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal15
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs' case briefly is as follows : The property in suit belonged to defendant 2. He mortgaged it on 27th Asar 1337 B.S. corresponding to 11th July 1920, to defendant 1. He executed a second mortgage in favour of the father of the plaintiffs on 27th Pous 1337 corresponding to January 1930. In the year 1931, the first mortgagee brought a suit upon his mortgage being Title Suit No. 375 of 1931 claiming the sum of Rs. 465-14-0. That suit was decreed on compromise for a sum of Rs. 399. In execution of that decree the first mortgagee purchased the mortgaged property on 19th January 1933 and took delivery of possession on 7th December 1933. The second mortgagee was not made, a party to this mortgage suit. Between these two latter dates the second mortgagee brought a suit on his mortgage being Title Suit No. 833 of 1933. In this suit he impleaded the first mortgagee but he did not seek to redeem...
Secretary of State Vs. Bhupati Nath Dev
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal143
Biswas, J.1. This appeal was fully heard and stood over for judgment. Meanwhile we are informed the parties have come to an agreement between themselves, and there will accordingly be a decree in terms of the settlement arrived at in lieu of the order made by the. Tribunal. This is a. satisfactory result : for, otherwise, we should have had seriously to consider whether there should not be a second remand. It is perfectly clear that the judgment of the learned President, even though it is concurred in by the two assessors, cannot be supported. There had been a remand already by order of this Court, but it does not seem to have produced a salutary result. In effect, the learned President thought it right, practically to re-affirm his previous valuation. On the last occasion his valuation was Rs. 66,800 and this time it is Rs. 66,605. Seemingly, his present conclusion is, arrived at on a different basis from that, adopted by him before, but reading between the lines, it does not appear t...
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Vs. Paresh Lal Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Cal485
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. This is an application for payment out by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation made in Chambers on 8th March 1938. I dealt with the matter in the usual rather hurried way, and asked the office to check. The certificate annexed (Annexure B to the petition) states that there is no attachment affecting the sum in the hands of the Registrar. It is signed by Mr. Collet as Registrar. The office quite rightly sent the matter back to me. The certificate (Ex. B) is not the Registrar's certificate. It happens to be signed by Mr. Collet as 'Registrar' because owing to our system of doubling, Mr. Collet looked at with one eye is the 'Accountant General'; looked at with the other he is the 'Registrar'. This certificate, technically, is the 'Accountant-General's certificate. It happens to be signed by Mr. Collet as 'Registrar' for a technical reason, the funds still being apparently in the 'Registrar's account'. This matter will become more plain when I deal with the ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›