Kolkata Court February 1941 Judgments
Raja Kamala Ranjan Roy Vs. BepIn Behari Sadkhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal540
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This application raises a difficult question of construction with regard to that exceedingly confused piece of legislation, the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The facts are simple enough. A borrower borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from the lender on 24th July 1937, which was secured by a mortgage agreement covering twenty one separate premises, which are admittedly of a value of more than Rs. 5,00,000. The interest provided by the mortgage deed was 7 per cent. with quarterly rests. The interest has been paid with more or less regularity, and the applicant concedes that in the circumstances the provision as to interest does not offend against Section 30 of the Act. A preliminary decree was made on 1st March 1940 for Rs. 2,17,000 with interest thereon at the stipulated rate up to the date of redemption and thereafter at 6 per cent. The final decree has not yet been made. The application for final decree is the next with which I shall have to deal. The notice of motion bef...
Tag this Judgment!Nur HosseIn Serang and anr. Vs. TamijuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal449
Henderson, J.1. S.A. No. 180 of 1938. - This appeal is concluded by the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court. The cross-objection relates to the land in Schedule 3 and is concerned with the form which the relief to be granted to the plaintiffs ought to take. The facts are these : This land originally belonged to defendant 8. It was sold in execution of a rent decree and purchased by one Nagendra. Nagendra sold part of it, in area 18 gandas, to defendant 1. He then sold the balance to one Ambica Bhattacharyya, who in his turn sold it to the plaintiffs. Defendant 8 instituted a title suit in connexion with this land. It was eventually compromised. By the compromise, defendant 1 and the plaintiffs surrendered half to defendant 8. No terms inter se were arranged between them as to the mode in which the balance was to be divided. It is clear that on these facts the plaintiffs cannot claim khas possession. They are really co- sharers with defendants 1 and 8. It is now agreed between...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal520
1. These two appeals are in two suits, title suits Nos. 18 and 19 of 1932 respectively, filed by the Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. In both these suits the Secretary of State for India in Council is the principal defendant. There are also some pro forma defendants to both these suits, but it is not necessary to notice them in these appeals. The first suit comprises some alluvial lands which lie within the ambit of five villages, Mobarakganj, Raja-gola, Nasipore, Khamardiar and Mansurpur alias Durgapore within the jurisdiction of Thana Bhagwangola. They have been formed from the bed of the river Bhairab as depicted in the revenue survey map prepared in the year 1855. In 1929 resumption proceedings were started by the Government, revenue was assessed on them and those lands were formed into a Diara estate No. 3214 of the Murshidabad Collectorate. The Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., called hereafter the company, claims these lands as appertaining to the permanently settled estate no. 523 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Abdul Wahed Vs. Province of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal553
McNair, J.1. The plaintiff was appoint-ed in 1934 as reserve clerk in the Second Munsiff's Court at Krishnagore. After a somewhat chequered career, he was removed from Government service in February 1939 and has brought a suit against the Province of Bengal claiming Rs. 22 lakhs, general damages and nearly Rs. 8000 for loss of salary and various allowances to which he claims to have been entitled under his conditions of service. The plaintiff appears in person and it is difficult to gather from his plaint the exact nature of his cause of action, but it appears to be mainly damages for wrongful dismissal. Issues were framed by the Court on 30th January 1941 and the case was set down for trial of three preliminary issues which are as follows:(1) Is the suit maintainable against the defendant for alleged wrongful dismissal by reason of the provisions of the Government of India Act?(2) Is the suit maintainable as against the defendant by reason (a) of the alleged wrongful acts or any of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Kiranbala Chowdhury Vs. Hiralal Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal492
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case the petitioner has applied for certain reliefs under the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, which are set forth in detail in the notice of motion. It is admitted by the decree-holder that the petitioner is entitled to have the decree reopened as against the decree-holder and that the rate of interest should be calculated at 8 per cent. per annum simple interest instead of at the rate of 9 per cent. compound which was the rate provided in the two mortgage deeds. The main point in dispute, however, is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to have the sale set aside, which was held on 20th December 1939. At that sale the mortgaged property was purchased not by the decree-holder but by two other persons, namely Butto Krishna Das and Ganesh Chandra Das, who, as required by the conditions of sale, deposited 25 per cent. of the purchase money in the office of the Registrar. Under Section 36, Money-lenders Act, it is clear that the transaction,...
Tag this Judgment!Jabed Sheikh Vs. Taher Mallick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal639
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Sadar Munsif, Faridpur, dated 25-6-1940, refusing to stay a proceeding for ascertainment of mesne profits on receipt of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows : The opposite party 1, Taher Mallik, brought a suit against the petitioners and certain other persons in the Court of the Sadar Munsif at Faridpur, for recovery of possession of certain property on establishment of his title to the same. There was also a prayer for mesne profits in the plaint. The suit culminated in a decree passed by the trial Court on 13th August 1936, which was finally affirmed by this Court in S. A. No. 456 of 1938. The plaintiff's claim for khas possession in respect of the lands in suit was allowed, and it was further declared that he would be entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendants, which would be ascertained on an application made by ...
Tag this Judgment!New Standard Bank Ltd. Vs. Munsur Ali Kazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal442
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule obtained by the plaintiff Bank calling upon the defendant to show cause why an order of the Munsif staying the hearing of a suit should not be set aside. The suit is to recover money due on a mortgage. The relevant facts are these : The defendant made an application to a Board under the provisions of Act 7 of 1986. The suit was stayed on receipt of a notice under Section 34 of that Act. On 31st May 1939, the plaintiff was included in Schedule 2, Reserve Bank of India Act of 1934. The effect of this was that the claim in the present suit ceased to be a debt within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The Board made an award on 22nd September 1939. The Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to question the action of the Board and that the only remedy of the petitioner was to appeal under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner then obtained this Rule. The question of the jurisdiction of the Courts to decide whether a certain claim is ...
Tag this Judgment!Nut Behari Das Vs. Mahammad Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal528
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif staying the suit under the provisions of Act 9 of 1940. The petitioner is the plaintiff and he instituted the suit both to recover arrears of rent and for ejectment. The defendant denies' that anything is due on account of rent. He also filed a prayer for staying the suit. The Munsif called upon the plaintiff to withdraw either his prayer for ejectment or his prayer for arrears of rent. The plaintiff refused to do so and the Munsif then stayed the whole suit. The plaintiff then obtained this rule. My learned brother Mitter J. in Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Narendra Nath : AIR1941Cal302 , pointed out the difficulty that there is in interpreting Section 3 of the Act. In my opinion, the only possible interpretation of the unhappy words used is the interpretation which he has placed upon them. To put it shortly the Act is intended to protect tenants who do pay their rent and not tenants who do not.2. The position, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Das Vs. Anukul Chandra Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal718
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the District Judge should not proceed to hear and determine an appeal. The appeal has been stayed under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. As, in my opinion, this rule must be made absolute on the third ground, it is not necessary to consider the first and the second. The point raised in the third ground is that the defendant is not a non-agricultural tenant within the meaning of the Act. The relevant words in Section 2 are as follows:.. but does not include a tenant who so holds a non-agricultural land together with any structure thereon erected or owned by the person under whom such tenant holds or by the superior or predecessor-in-interest of such person.2. It is not disputed that the opposite party is the tenant of both the land and buildings. It appears that he has erected three sheds which are known ekchalas. The contention made on his behalf is that that is sufficient to...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Shamangini Roy Chowdhurani Vs. Sm. Mahalakshmi Rakshit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal44
ORDERMcNair, J.1.This is an application by the mortgagor for leave to deposit in Court the amount found due to the mortgagee under the Registrar's report that on such payment being made direction be given to the plaintiff to tax her bill of costs, and that on payment to the plaintiff of such amount as may be adjudged due to her in respect of costs, charges-expenses and subsequent interest, the plaintiff be directed to deliver up the original documents of title. The mortgage was by deposit of title deeds, and in effect the applicant is asking for leave to deposit in Court the amount found due under the Registrar's report and recover her security and is suggesting, as the costs have not yet been taxed and cannot be taxed within a reasonable time, that the mortgagee should retain the documents of title pending payment by the mortgagor of the amount of the taxed costs. The mortgagee is agreeable to this arrangement provided the mortgagor is also liable for the Accountant-General's commissi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »