Kolkata Court April 1941 Judgments
Kumar Jogendra NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Sourendra NaraIn Sinha and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal431
Edgley, J.1. In this case an application has been filed under Section 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act, 1940, in which we are asked to give certain relief to the petitioners under the provisions of that Act. It appears that the decree-holders are seeking to execute a decree which was passed in suit No. 38 of 1916 by the learned District Judge of Alipore on 15th February 1917. The decree in question was for the sum of 17 lacs of rupees, and it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to relief as the principal amount borrowed by them from the decree-holders does not exceed Rs. 6,29,629, and that in these circumstances they are entitled either to have the decree re-opened under Section 36 (1) (a), Bengal Money-lenders Act or, at any rate, to be released from all liability in excess of the limits specified in Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 30 of the Act. This application was filed in this Court in connexion with F. M. A. No. 197 of 1940, which was directed against the order of the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Nabendra Nath Basak Vs. Shasabindoo Nath Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal595
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover half share of the money due on a hatchita alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 in favour of himself, defendant 2, plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the father of plaintiff 1 on 31st Chaitra 1338 B.S. corresponding to 15th April 1932. The defence of defendant 1 is that he did not execute the hatchita in suit, that the claim in the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The Subordinate Judge has overruled all these defences and has decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by defendant l. The first point for determination in this appeal is whether the hatchita in suit was executed by defendant 1. Two handwriting experts were examined in this case: one (Mr. F. Brewster) by the plaintiffs and the other (D. W. l) by defendant 1. Mr. Brewster is of opinion that the hatchita in suit bears the signature of defendant 1. The opinion of D. W. 1 is that the signature on the hatehita in spit which purports to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sinha and ors. Vs. Durga Charan Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal606
1. These three appeals arise out of three analogous actions in ejectment commenced by the same plaintiffs against different sets of defendants. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The lands in dispute which are situated within the Comilla Municipality admittedly appertained to a raiyati holding which belonged to one Jinnat Ali Sardar and was held by him under the Maharaja of Tippera at a rental of Rs. 36 a year. The raiyati holding of Jinnat Ali comprised both agricultural and homestead lands having a total area of more than one drone. Babu Gurudayal Sinha, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, purchased the lands of. these suits from Jinnat Ali by a registered kabala dated 17th Pous 1802 B.S. These lands are all homestead lands and after his purchase Gurudayal Babu settled the same in separate parcels with the defendants in the three suits who took these lands for purposes of residence and promised to vacate them on receipt of 15 days notice. ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Ch. Mitra Vs. Indian Economic Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal579
Lort-Williams, J.1. In this case the plaintiff as receiver to the estate of Subodh Chunder Mitter deceased sues the defendant company for a declaration that the plaintiff is en-titled to all moneys due and payable under an insurance policy No. 951, dated 30th March 1939 for Rs. 15,000 issued by the defendant company on the life of the deceased, for a decree for Rs. 15,000 and for other reliefs. The defence is discharge by payment under an order of this Court. No oral evidence has been given on behalf of either party. The relevant facts and dates are as follows: On 5th August 1939 a suit No. 1555 of 1939, Bhupat Singh v. Mitters Ltd. and others, was filed inter alia against Subodh Chunder Mitter for money due on a hundi. On the 11th of the same month he died. On the 16th a suit, No. 1666 of 1939, was filed by the Calcutta National Bank Ltd., against the heirs of the deceased man for Rs. 22,500, and on the 30th suit No. 1555 of 1939 was amended by substituting the heirs and praying for a...
Tag this Judgment!Balchand Purohit Vs. Sir Bejoy Chand Mahtab Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal661
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He has been put into a difficult position, because he conducted the litigation in the Courts below in person without legal assistance, 'It has therefore not been very-easy either for the learned advocates concerned or for the Court to deal in a satisfactory way with his case. In order to understand the two points which have been pressed in support of the appeal the following facts require to be stated : Defendant 1, the Burdwan Raj, executed a lease in favour of James Mukhia on 30th March 1926. Previous to that date on 19th May 1925 the Burdwan Raj intimated to James Mukhia that a lease would be sanctioned on payment of Rs. 41-10-0 as selami. This selami was paid on 22nd June 1925. On 6th August 1923 James Mukhia borrowed Rs. 1500 from the plaintiff and agreed to mortgage the lease as security. On 5th February 1926 James Mukhia borrowed a further sum of Rs. 1500 from the plaintiff. On 15th February 1926 James Mukhia executed another mort...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhuranjan Sarkar Vs. Soleman Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal613
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit commenced by him to recover possession of the lands in suit on establishment of his title by purchase at a mortgage sale. The facts so far as are material for our present purposes may be stated as follows : The lands in suit constituted a raiyati holding carrying a rental of Rs. 19 a year, and belonged to one Nikaria Bibi. Nikaria died leaving behind her a son named Nedu and a daughter, Purna Bibi. On 17 th May 1913, Nedu who had only two-third share in the holding, executed a mortgage deed in respect of the entire lands in favour of one Gurudas, the predecessor of the plaintiff, to secure an advance received from the latter. A person named Amo Pramamk joined as a co-mortgagor in this mortgage bond, but it is admitted that he had no interest in the property. On 16th April 1914 the same mortgagors created a second mortgage of the same property in favour of the Bogra Loan Company. On 22nd April ...
Tag this Judgment!F.L. Harcourt and anr. Vs. Clarke Rowlins Ker and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal662
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. To my mind this application raises a point which is quite a simple one, although I am disposed to concede that, if the facts were slightly different, questions of difficulty might arise. It appears that when the defendants, Gregson and Reed Ward & Co. instructed the firm of Messrs. Sanderson & Co. to represent them in the suit, the partners in that firm were Messrs. S. S. Hodson., H. Carey Morgan, E. C. Esson and H. P. Sutclife. Of these Mr. Esson is now dead. Mr. Hodson and Mr. Carey Morgan have retired from India, and I assume that their names are no longer on the roll of attorneys of the Court. The warrant in favour of Messrs. Sanderson & Co. was filed on 18th April 1931. On 1st January 1933, Messrs. Sanderson & Co., entered into an agreement with another firm of attorneys, Messrs. Morgan & Co. which may conveniently be referred to as one of amalgamation; that is to say, the members of the two firms became partners in a new firm called 'Sanderson & Morgans.' No...
Tag this Judgment!ApseruddIn Howladar and ors. Vs. Abual Kasem and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal604
B.K. Mukherjea, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie within a short com-pass and may be stated as follows : Under diara touzi No. 6454 of the Faridpur Collectorate there was a tenure owned jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants 10 to 20 of the suit out of which the appeal arises at a yearly rental of Rs. 282-15-0 only. Under this tenure there was a subordinate tenancy held by defendants 1 to 7. The touzi was sold for arrears of Government revenue on 23rd March 1934, and it was purchased by defendant 8 in the benami of defendant 9. The plaintiffs got a conveyance of the touzi from the auction purchaser in pous 1341 B.S. Their case is that after the purchase they annulled the intermediate tenure held by them jointly with defendants 10 to 20 and they accordingly pray for a declaration that they are entitled to realize rents directly from the under-tenants who are defendants 1 to 7 in the suit. There was also a prayer for recovery of rents from defendants 1 to 7 for the last tw...
Tag this Judgment!Srijib Nyayatirtha, Secretary and ors. Vs. Sreemant Dandy Swami Jagann ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal618
1. This appeal has been filed by six out of nine members of the committee of the Tarakeswar temple endowment and ii directed against the decision of the learned District Judge of Hughli dated 6th February 1939. The mahant maharaj of the said temple is the principal respondent. The remaining three members of the committee are also respondents but they have not taken any active part in the proceedings before us. There is an alternative application in revision in case it be held that no appeal lies. Satish Chandra Giri was formerly the mahant of the endowment. On account of his mismanagement, breaches of trust and for other reasons some members of the public with the requisite sanction instituted a suit (no. 28 of 1922) in the Court of the District Judge at Hughli under Section 92, Civil P. C, for the removal of the said mahant, for appointment of a mahant in his place, for the framing of a scheme of management and control of the trust properties and for other reliefs which it is not nece...
Tag this Judgment!F.L. Harcourt and anr. Vs. Clarke Rawlins Ker and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal679
ORDERPanckridge, J.1. The history of this matter is as follows: In 1931 there was a firm of Solicitors practising in Calcutta under the name and style of Clark Rawlins Ker & Co. The partners were the Rt. Hon'ble Sir Dennis Herbert, Mr. K. M. Beaumont, Mr. W. H. Beaumont and Capt. A. E. Ker. In that month a suit was filed against the firm by one Mr. Harcourt, acting as liquidator of a Limited Company known as the Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Ltd. The suit was for damages for conspiracy and for negligence and failure of duty as solicitors. On 18th April 1931 Capt. Ker gave a warrant of attorney to Mr. Victor Moses to act on behalf of the firm of Clark Rawlins Ker & Co. That warrant was signed Clarke Rawlins Ker & Co. by the pen of A. E. Ker partner, on 3lst December 1931. Messrs. Clarke Rawlins Ker & Co. were dissolved, and thereafter Capt. Ker continued to carry on business in Calcutta under the name and style of Clarke Rawlins Ker & Co. It is admitted that the warrant given on 18...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »