Kolkata Court December 1939 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.
Audh Behari Bhakat and ors. Vs. Akshay Kumar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal211
Henderson, J.1. Only one small point is raised in this appeal. The plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted a suit on a mortgage claiming a certain sum of money. The learned Munsif gave him a decree for a slightly lesser amount with which he remained satisfied. The defendant, however, appealed. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and further ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the sum of Rs. 485. It is now contended that the order for refund was not properly made and should be set aside. Briefly, the learned Judge reached this result in the following way: He held that Section 3 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act applied. Applying the provisions of that Section he came to the conclusion that the loan was really paid off by the year 1938. On this calculation the defendant paid further sums after the debt had been really discharged. He ordered the plaintiff to refund such of those sums as had been paid after the Bengal Money Lenders Act came into force. In ...
Madan Lal Jhunjhunwalla Vs. H.H. the Nawab Sayed Reza Ali Khan Bahadur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal244
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 1st September 1938, the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the debtor, filed a petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol for being adjudicated insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In this petition the opposite party who is a Ruling Chief, hereinafter referred to as the creditor, was stated to be his only creditor to whom he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 90,102-2-10 on account of a decree for rents and taxes in respect of certain houses in the town of Calcutta obtained by the opposite party against him on the original side of this Court in Suit No. 1632 of 1932. Notice of this insolvency petition was given to the creditor in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Provincial Insolvency Act. On 14th November 1938, the creditor appeared and applied for time to file his objections. This application was allowed and the creditor was given time till 5th December 1938 to file his objections. The creditor however did n...
Debendra Nath Majhi and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Nayak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal460
ORDEREdgley, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Bankura, dated 1st April 1939, under which he directed that certain property should be returned to the mortgagors under the provisions of Section 26-G, Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioners in this case are the mortgagees and they contend that the order made by the learned Munsif was wrong owing to the fact that the property with which the order is concerned was not covered by Section 26-G, Ben. Ten. Act. In the mortgage bond the mortgagors' right was described as nishkar and it was on this basis that the mortgage transaction took place. The learned advocate for the petitioners contends that a nishkar holding should be regarded as being governed by Section 18, Ben. Ten. Act, and I consider that there is great force in this contention. In the case with which we are now dealing, it was apparently admitted by the mortgagors that their holding was a nishkar holding and rent-free in perpetuity. In a case of this sort...
Dilip Kumar Dutta Gupta and ors. Vs. Sridhar Dalui and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal110
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioners were the plaintiffs in Rent Suit No. 2352 of 1938. They held a tenure under Touzi No. 401 of the 24 Parganas Collectorate. It appears that this estate fell into arrears in respect of the payment of cess under the Cess Act of 1880 with the result that the Collector issued a notification in respect of the estate under Section 99, Cess Act. After the issue of this notification the petitioners' tenants paid their rent direct to the Collector and in the rent suit with reference to which this application arises the tenants pleaded that the amount due from them as rent had already been paid. The main contention of the petitioners in this case is that Section 99, Cess Act, confers no authority upon the Collector to realize rent except rent payable directly to the owners of the estate which has been attached. The petitioners maintain that the rent due from them to the landlords of Touzi No. 401 was actually realized by the Collector, but, so far as...
Joy Durga Dassi and ors. Vs. Maharaj Kumar Sourish Chandra Roy Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Cal215
Nasim Ali, J.1. On 15th April 1936 the Certificate Officer of Nadia signed a certificate under Section 6, Public Demands Recovery Act, in the prescribed form stating that a sum of Rs. 2,03403-12-3 was due from the petitioners on a written requisition to him by the opposite party in the prescribed form. The petitioners thereupon filed objections to the certificate under Section 9 of the Act. These objections were rejected by a Certificate Officer on 9th March 1938 with remarks to the following effect; (i) that considering the principles laid down in Section 99 of the Cess Act, the certificates cannot be put to execution as long as Section 99 is in force ; (ii) that the consideration about the saleability of the patni according to the terms of the patni patta would be deferred till the execution stage; (iii) that the question of adjustment of the dues in the certificate would be deferred till the termination of the attachment under Section 99, Cess Act. The petitioners filed an appeal ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›