Kolkata Court February 1941 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.
In Re: Royal Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal170
Derbyshire, C.J.1. The Royal Insurance Co., does business in the United Kingdom, India, and other parts of the world. It has done business in India for some 60 years. During that time it has carried on life assurance business. Previous to the year in question, the company had been assessed under Rule 35, Income-tax Rules, which pro- vides as follows:The total income of the Indian branches of nonresident insurance companies (life, marine, fire, accident, burglary, fidelity guarantee, etc.) in the absence of more reliable data may be deemed to be the proportion of the total income, profits or gains, of the companies, corresponding to the proportion which their Indian premium income bears to their total premium income. For the purpose of this rule the total income, profits or gains of non-resident life assurance companies whose profits are periodically ascertained by actuarial valuation shall be computed in the same manner as is prescribed in Rule 25 for the computation of income, profits...
Jamadar Singh Vs. Sheikh Naiyab Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal378
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant l- on a mortgage. Defendants 2 and 3 had prior to the institution of the suit obtained a decree against defendant 1 and in execution thereof had put the mortgaged property to sale. Defendant 3 purchased the property at the sale. He resists the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the mortgage is invalid as it was effected without consideration and for the purpose of defeating and delaying creditors. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had not paid consideration for the mortgage and that the transaction was a fraudulent one entered into by defendant 1 and the plaintiff with the object of defeating and delaying the creditors of the former. On these grounds he dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned subordinate Judge held that part of the consideration for the mortgage was real and gave the plaintiff a mortgage decree with respect to that part. Defendant 3 appeals and raises the following points:First, he says that the...
Sailendra Nath Bhattacherjee Vs. Amarendra Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal484
1. One Atul Chandra Mukherjee, father of defendant 1, borrowed Rs. 500 from one Nirupama Debi on 10th June 1920 by mortgaging the properties in suit. This mortgage would hereafter be called the first mortgage. Thereafter he borrowed two sums of money on the security of the self same properties, namely, Rs. 5000 from the Sens (defendants 3 and 4), and Rs. 1600 from one Benode Behary Mukherjee (predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 9). These two mortgages will hereafter be called the second and the third mortgages. On 17th March 1923, he borrowed a further sum of Rs. 2360 from the plaintiff, Sailendra, on the security of the self-same properties. This is the mortgage which is sought to be enforced in this suit. All these mortgages were simple mortgages. As the suit was instituted after the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 8 of 1933, the plaintiff limited his claim to Rs. 4720 only, being double the principal amount lent by him. In 1923, after the plaintiff's mortgage, the Sens sued to enfo...
In Re: Mirja Md. Masrur Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal150
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. In this petition of the Official Assignee of Calcutta he states that the debtor was adjudicated insolvent on his own petition on 17th September 1923, more than 17 years ago, and filed his schedule of affairs on 18th December 1923 showing Rs. 36,788- as unsecured liabilities. The balance now standing to his credit in the hands of the Official Assignee is Rs. 219-5-3. Not having applied for his discharge, the adjudication was annulled on 23rd July 1928, more than 12 years ago, and an order was made by the Registrar in the following terms, namely, 'Annulled. The assets to remain in the hands of the O/A subject to the further order of the Court.' This order was not completed and filed by the Official Assignee until 4th December 1940. The Official Assignee has discovered recently that the debtor owns a fractional share amounting to l9/576ths in a property known as the Dhalbhum Mining Estate at Dhalbhum in the District of Singhbhum which he failed to disclose in his ...
Nalini Kanta Maity Vs. Brojo Mohan Patra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal361
B.K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This rule was obtained by the plaintiff-petitioner on an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Court Act, and it is directed against an order of dismissal made by the Munsif, second Court, Contai, (exercising Small Cause Court powers) in small cause court suit No. 21 of 1940. The facts necessary for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows: The defendant-opposite party borrowed a sum of Rs. 200 from the plaintiff on a promissory note, dated 18th September 1935. In April 1938, the defendant presented an application before the Debt Settlement Board at Karanji for settlement of his debt. The debt due on this promissory note was settled at Rs. 125, and on that basis an award was made which made the money payable within Jaistha 1346 B.S. The defendant did not pay the money in accordance with the award, and the plaintiff also failed to file an application before the certificate officer within the time allowed by the rules for recovery of this...
Sm. Mahalakshmi Rakhit and anr. Vs. Sm. Shamrangini Roy Chowdhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal673
Panckridge, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Sen J. dismissing an application made by the defendant mortgagor under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The applicant asked for the mortgage transaction to be re-opened, and also asked that, in taking the account, the mortgagor should not be charged with compound interest, or charged with interest on the decretal amount, as provided by the final decree. The facts of the case are very simple. The appellant on 7th April 1937, took a loan from the respondent of Rs. 11,000, and executed a promissory note for that amount, the provision for interest being that it should be payable at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent. com-pound interest with quarterly rests. To secure the principal and interest the appellant deposited by way of equitable mortgage the title deeds of a property called No. 19, Mohan Began Lane. The suit to enforce the mortgage was instituted on I8th January 1939, the interest claimed amounting to Rs. 642 3-9. The suit was undefended...
Mandi Mia Vs. Sekander Mea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal411
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the decree-holder auction purchaser and it arises out of a proceeding for confirmation of an execution sale. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and may be stated as follows : The appellant before us obtained a money decree against the respondents and in execution of the same put up to sale an occupancy holding belonging to the latter. The sale was held on 7th February 1933 and the purchaser was the decree-holder himself. It appears that there was a proceeding to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., which was eventually dismissed some time in the year 1934. We find from the order sheet of the execution case that on 5th March 1935 the Court passed an order directing the appellant to deposit the landlord's fees within seven days. This order was not complied with and on 19th June 1935 the petition for confirmation of sale was rejected. Nothing was done for a period of three years after this and on 10th September...
Sm. Annapurna Ray Vs. Srish Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal539
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. This is an application by the defendant to have a preliminary mortgage decree dated 7th June 1940, set aside under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. There is also a prayer that a new decree may be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The suit was filed in March 1940, and the mortgage which it sought to enforce was dated 27th January 1939. The amount advanced on the mortgage was Rs. 15,000 and the provision as to interest was that it should be payable at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum (to be reduced to 6 per cent. per annum in case of regular and punctual payment and before the same became due and payable) payable by equal monthly instalments and compound interest at the said rate in case of default in payment of any three successive instalments of simple interest. In the preliminary decree it was declared that the amount due was a sum of Rs. 15,000 for principal and a sum of Rs. 15 for interest making in all a sum of Rs. 15,015 and also that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›