Kolkata Court June 1940 Judgments
Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal372
Panckridge, J.1. The facts of this case are comparatively simple, but the points of law involved are of considerable importance, and the sum at stake is a large one. Defendant 3 Dwijendra Chandra Ghose on 11th May 1939, opened a current account with the defendant bank. A letter addressed to the manager, Mr. Amin, by the defendant Ghose, dated 2nd May 1939, is in evidence, in which the latter announces his intention of opening the account stating that he will be requiring temporary accommodation, which defendant 2 Sailendra Nath Mitter is willing to guarantee. There is an endorsement by the defendant Mitter on the letter stating that he agrees to this arrangement. The defendant Mitter at this time had a cash credit account with the plaintiff bank, whose manager, Mr. Bhagwandas, has given evidence in the case. Mr. Bhagwandas's evidence is that on 13th June 1939, the defendant Mitter brought him two cheques of that date drawn in his favour by the defendant Ghose, one for Rs. 1,40,000, and...
Tag this Judgment!Amiya Bikash Datta and ors. Vs. Mohaluxmi Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal587
Edgley, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this ease and in the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff, the Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. sued for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's right had not been affected by a certificate sale which was held on 8th January 1934 by which the defendants purchased certain property. It appears that this property had been purchased by the plaintiff Bank on 8th August 1931 in execution of a mortgage decree and that the Bank obtained possession in the execution proceedings on 3rd November 1931. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for mutation in the Collectorate records and the mutation order was made on 23rd September 1932. In the meantime a certificate had been filed against the former proprietors of this property in respect of arrears of case and at the ensuing certificate sale which was held on 8th January 1934 this property was purchased by Annada Charan Datta, the father of the principal appellant. The plaintiff Bank took the us...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Sankar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Jatindra Nath Chahravarty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal255
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These appeals in my opinion must succeed. Under the rent decree the decree-holders were obliged to proceed in the first place to sell the tenure in arrears and if that proved insufficient to satisfy the decretal dues, for the balance only the judgment-debtors were made personally liable. It so happened that within six months from the date of the decree the putni was sold under Regulation (8 of 1819) for realization of arrears of rent due for a period prior to that for which the decree was obtained. As matters now stand the putni is gone and I do not see any reason why the decree-holders should not be allowed to proceed against the judgment-debtors personally in accordance with the terms of the decree. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the respondents that the sale held under the putni regulation at the instance of the decree-holders must be taken subject to the rent decree. This contention, in my opinion is untenable. When a putni tenure is properly and v...
Tag this Judgment!Khodeja and anr. Vs. Mahamad Abdul Khaleque and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal472
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In my opinion this rule must be made absolute. Certain co-sharers in a holding have transferred or purported to transfer their interest to one of the other cosharers and seven strangers. There are altogether ten cosharers of this holding. Two of the cosharers, neither of them the one to whom the transfer has been made along with the seven strangers, claimed a right of pre-emption given under Section 26-F, Ben. Ten. Act, which was brought into operation in 1938. The stranger transferees and some of the other cosharers, we are told, opposed this transfer. When these proceedings were started, the two claimant co-owners claimed pre-emption of the whole of the portion of the holding which had been transferred, but during the proceedings they limited their claim to that portion which had been transferred to the strangers. As there were eight transferees and seven of them strangers we must assume that the two claimant co-owners limited their claim of pre-emption to the seve...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Nath Sardar and anr. Vs. Kalipada Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal486
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is direct-ad against an order o the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, dated 26th March 1940, made in a proceeding under Section 26-G(5), Ben. Ten. Act. The petitioners are the mortgagees under a mortgage deed executed by opposite party No. 3 on behalf of herself and her two sons, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, who were then minors in April 1923. The case of the opposite parties was that it was a usufructuary mortgage and they presented the application for restoration of the mortgaged properties under Section 26-G(5), Ben. Ten. Act, on the ground that more than fifteen years having elapsed from the date of the registration of the instrument the consideration of the mortgage was extinguished.2. The mortgagees resisted the claim substantially on two grounds: It was urged in the first place that the mortgage was one by conditional sale and not a usufructuary mortgage and as such the provisions of Section 26-G(5), Ben. Ten. Act, were not applicable....
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mahommed Yaqub Vs. Imperial Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal110
Lort-Williams, J.1. The plaintiff's claim is for money had and received. He had at all material times a current account with the defendant Bank. In the first week of February 1937 he drew a cheque, No. A14766, on the Bank for Rs. 6250 in favour of B.S. Makani, post-dated 20th March 1937. On 14th February 1937, he wrote to the Bank countermanding that order for payment, which was acknowledged by the Bank on 20th March 1937. Nevertheless, and contrary to these instructions, on 10th June 1937, the Bank cashed the cheque, made payment to Makani, and debited the plaintiff's account with the amount. The plaintiff alleges and the Bank denies negligence. The Bank also relies on Clause 5 of its Current Account Rules, knowledge of which is admitted by the plaintiff, and which reads as follows:The Bank will register instructions from the drawer regarding cheques lost, stolen, etc., but cannot guarantee constituents against loss in such cases in event of a cheque being paid.2. There can be no doub...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Mojumdar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal87
ORDEREdgley, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 44 (d), Electricity Act. It is contended on his behalf that the judgment of the learned Magistrate contains no sufficient finding to warrant a conviction under this section. With this contention I must agree. The case for the prosecution appears to have been that the petitioner improperly used three points in his workshop for lighting purposes when he was under a contract with the electric supply company to use the energy supplied through these points for industrial purposes only. The learned Magistrate seems to have been of the opinion that it might be presumed that he had used the electrical energy improperly as alleged by the prosecution because he had made certain connexions for the use of electrical energy without the consent of the licensee. In my opinion he has misread Section 44, Electricity Act. This section inter alia imposes a penalty for improperly using the energy of a licensee. The onus would t...
Tag this Judgment!Jhajharia Bros. Ltd. Vs. Sholapoor Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal174
Ameer Ali, J.1. The defendant company was formed as long ago as 1874 with a capital of eight lakhs divided approximately into 800 shares. Since that date, it has had its ups and downs, but it has spun and woven. It has made its profits. It has turned out goods, and no doubt if its management would devote its attention more exclusively to spinning and weaving it would be a flourishing industrial concern. Among the downs, may be mentioned the winding up petition of 1930, which ultimately resulted in borrowing some 70 lakhs upon debentures. In 1931 largely I gather as the result of the need for finance managing agents were obtained in the shape of the Jhajharia and Dhandhania families, who combining into the unit of Morarji Goculdas & Co., became for a period the managing agents. If I recollect rightly, the Jhajharias became selling agents under an agreement, the term of which was 20 years. The managing agents under their agreement became liable for advances to the extent of 20 lakhs in t...
Tag this Judgment!Binode Behari Mukherjee and ors. Vs. K.C. Biswas and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Cal552
Derbyshire, C.J.1. In my view this rule must be made absolute. It seems to me that the provision of law which applies is Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees Act, and that the suit should be valued accordingly. The original valuation put upon it by the plaintiffs of Rs. 10 was, in my view, the correct valuation. There will be no order as to costs.B.K. Mukherjea, J.2. I agree and desire to add a few words. The suit as it is framed is one for obtaining a permanent injunction as contemplated by Section 7(iv)(d), Court-fees-Act. Even if the Court of Appeal below is right, that the injunction prayed for was in the nature of a consequential relief of a declaration that defendant 1 had only the rights of a darkorfa tenant that does not, in my opinion, make any difference as in both these cases the plaintiffs have a right to put their own valuation upon the relief which they claim in the suit. The Courts below have obviously interfered with the valuation made by the plaintiffs under the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.E. Forbes (Deceased), O.V. Forbes Vs. V.G. Peterson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Cal417
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. 6-6-1940. This is one of those peculiar cases where I take a definite view but without having any supreme confidence that the view is correct. The facts may be very shortly stated. They will appear from the very useful list of dates handed in by the Advocate-General which may remain on the record. Mrs. Adelaide Elizabeth Forbes died at Dehra Dun on 6th June 1939. She left a will dated 23rd January 1938, whereby Mr. Oswald Vernon Forbes and Mrs. Peterson, one of his two sisters, were appointed executors. The two executors together with the other sister, Mrs. Earle were residuary legatees in equal shares. There is a document in the form of a codicil dated 1st June 1939 whereby the residuary share of Mrs. Peterson is varied in favour of Mr. Forbes to the extent of a half and the two executors named are Mr. Forbes and a certain Mr. Owen O'Neill. The existence of this codicil was disclosed by Mr. Forbes, if I re-collect rightly, somewhere about 4th July 1939. On 11th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »