Kolkata Court May 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.
New Standard Bank Ltd., by B.K. Dutta, Managing Director Vs. Probodh C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal87
1. The facts which are not in dispute in these two appeals are these : A limited company named House of Labourers Ltd., was incorporated in the year 1926. Another Company named Steel Construction Co. Ltd., was incorporated in the year 1929. On 3lst December 1930, Probodh Chandra Chakravarty (the respondent in these two appeals) for self and on behalf of the House of Labourers Ltd., executed a promissory note for Rs. 10,000 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum with half yearly rests in favour of a company known as the Rice and Oil Mills Ltd., Comilla. On 15th December 1931, the Steel Construction Co., took over the assets and liabilities of the House of Labourers Ltd. and at about the same time the Rice and Oils Mills Co. was converted into a company called the New Standard Bank Ltd. (the appellant in these two appeals). On 23rd September 1932 an order was made by the original side of this Court for winding up of the Steel Construction Co., and a liquidator was appointed. On 28th Nov...
Sm. Rajkumari Prafullanalini Dassi W/O Girija Kishore Ghosh and anr. V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal451
Edgley, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mr. S.C. Sen. Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated 29th April 1939, by which he refused to re-open certain execution, proceedings on the ground that an order had been passed in these proceedings, namely Execution Case No. 159 of 1937, that the decree had been fully satisfied. Admittedly, the order in question was based on a mistake. It appears that in a previous Execution Case No. 242 of 1936, the sum of Rs. 1000 had been paid by one of the judgment-debtors to the pleader for the decree-holders who accordingly entered part satisfaction in respect of this payment in the execution case. Thereafter the agent of judgment-debtor 18 told the pleader for the' decree-holders that the execution case had actually been dismissed for default and the pleader relying on this statement entered satisfaction to the extent of Rs. 1000 in the suit. It subsequently transpired that Execution Case No. 242 of 1936 had not in fact been dismissed for defau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›