Kolkata Court July 1941 Judgments
Pabna District Board Vs. Ranjit Chandra Lahiri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal72
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 2, the District Board of Pabna, and arises out of a suit which was commenced by the plaintiff, who is a leading lawyer of Pabna, for refund of a sum of eight annas said to have been recovered from him as a bridge toll. The question is as to the legality of this imposition. The facts of the case are shortly as follows : In the year 1929 a bridge known as the Manoharpur Bridge was constructed by the District Board out of its own funds at a cost of Rs. 18,000 and it appears that the District Board thereupon obtained the sanction of the Local Government for the establishment of a toll-bar on this bridge and the levy of a toll on persons, vehicles and animals passing over the bridge under the provisions of Section 86A, Local Self-Government Act (Bengal Act 3 of 1885). That sanction was contained in letter dated 6th June 1929, which is Ex. E in the case. Recently, the Road Board which is a body set up by the Central Government undertook t...
Tag this Judgment!Juggannath Roy and anr. Vs. Madan Mohan Burman and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal125
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application for relief under the Bengal Money-lenders Act in respect of a mortgage loan taken on 25th September 1926. The loan was for Rs. 3,00,000. There was the usual preliminary decree passed on 12th December 1930, and a final decree on 8th December 1931. Thereafter, various adjustments were recorded between the parties. The last adjustment was on lst March 1938, whereby it was provided that the interest would be calculated at the rate of 61/2 per cent. per annum if the amount fixed was paid in terms of certain orders previously passed. The plaintiffs agreed not to proceed in execution for six years from 1st April 1938. I may mention that the interest payable according to the terms of the mortgage was 91/2 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests. The defendants have now applied for relief under the Bengal Money-lenders Act on the grounds, firstly, that they have paid interest beyond the limits specified in Section 30 of the Act; secondly, that they are ent...
Tag this Judgment!Bijon K. Nawn Vs. Sudhir Ch. Nawn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal468
ORDERAmeer Ali, J.1. With a considerable part of the application I do not deal being, I consider a matter for the taxing authorities and then the taxing officer. I propose to deal only with three questions : (1) the matter relating to the preliminary enquiry; (2) the matters relating to the application for the confirmation of report on the preliminary enquiry; (3) the matter of counsel's fees in the principal enquiry.2. The matter 1 involves counsel's fees. The matter 2 involves the fees of seoond counsel and second day's fees; not very important in amount, but the main question of principle on this application. Matter 3 involves Mr. P.N. Sen's fees, 315 gold mohurs.3. The three matters, to my mind, should be dealt with on different principles.(i) As regards matter 1, I am not called upon to consider the question of written consent of client or overriding discretion of the Court. The fees to counsel in this case would be covered by a certificate under Chap. 36, Rule 56, The question is...
Tag this Judgment!Kunja Behari Pal Vs. Rai Satyendra Nath Das Bahadur and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal689
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca, dated 19th June 1941, rejecting an application of the petitioner for re-opening of a mortgage decree and for certain other reliefs under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act. The facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: The petitioner had various business transactions with Rai Revati Mohan Das Bahadur the father of the opposite parties for over a considerable period and the latter had supplied timber and tin goods to the petitioner from time to time for which, on adjustment of accounts outstanding in August 1928, it was found that a sum of Rs. 74,297 and annas odd was due by the petitioner to the said Revati Mohan. In August 1928, the petitioner executed a security bond in favour of Revati Mohan hypothecating certain properties as security for the said sum of Rupees 74,297 and annas odd and for price of other goods that might be supplied to him in future ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radharani Dassi W/O Narayan Chaudra Ghose Vs. Smt. Binodamoyee Da ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal92
Nasim Ali, J.1. The following genealogy about which there is no dispute will explain the facts of the case: __________________________________ | | | Abmas Khelaram Nibarn (died in (died in (died in 1315 B. S.) Kartic Falgoon 1326 B.S.) 1336 B.S.) ______________________________ | | | | | Rabi Atul Upen | (Defendant 1) | _________________| | _______________|_________________ | | | | Charu Maitra Rajani Sajani (Defendant 2)2. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these: Abinash acquired the properties included in Schedule Ka of the plaint, with his own earnings. As he had no son he and his wife liked defendants 1 and 2 very much. The latter used to live at the house of Abinash during his life-time. After Abinash's death Binoda Moyee being an illiterate pardanashih lady, the properties inherited by her from Abinash were managed and looked after by defendants 1 and 2. On 6th Kartic 1326 B. S.=23rd October 1919, a deed of gift was executed by Binoda Moyee and Nibaran. The mat...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Krishna Dey Sarkar Vs. B. Wilcox Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal237
Lodge, J.1. This rule wag issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate and upon the complainant opposite party to show cause why the conviction and the sentence under Section 408, Penal Code, passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside. The case for the prosecution was as follows : The present petitioner was the chief shipping clerk of the complainant company. Under him were four jetty Sarkars. These jetty Sarkars were employed in clearing goods at the port. The petitioner used to advance money to the jetty Sarkars to enable them to clear the goods. For this purpose he used to draw money from time to time from the cashier of the complainant company on slips signed by him and countersigned by the Chief Accountant. At the end of each day, the jetty Sarkars would produce before the petitioner, the Port Commissioners' receipts for the money expended by them and slips containing an account of the day's expenditure. The jetty Sarkars used to enter their expenditure in a book known as L...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Chhajulal Vs. Giridharilal Rameshwarlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal613
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application under Order 21, Rule 50, Civil P.C. The petitioner alleges that there were transactions between the petitioner and Messrs. Giridharilal Rameswarlal as a result of which a certain sum became due to the petitioner. Disputes arose and they were referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under the old Arbitration Act. The parties to the arbitration as set out in the award are as follows: 'Messrs. Motilal Chhajulal sellers and Messrs. Giridharilal Rameswarlal, buyers.' An award was made against Messrs. Giridharilal Rameswarlal. The award was filed in Court and became enforceable as a decree. The petitioner now applies under Order 21, Rule 50, Sub-rule (2), Civil P.C., for leave to execute the award against three persons, viz., Lalchand Khendelwal, Kaluram Khendelwal and Benarasilal Khendelwal on the ground that they are partners of the firm of Messrs. Giridharilal Rameswarlal. Lalchand Khendelwal and Benarasilal Khendalwal are represe...
Tag this Judgment!Promode Kumar Roy and anr. Vs. Tincowrie Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal37
ORDERSen, J.1. This is an application under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The facts as stated in the application briefly are as follows : On 29th August 1924 the petitioner borrowed Rs. 60,000 from the opposite parties and executed a mortgage in their favour. The interest payable under the mortgage was 9 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests. There was a suit upon that mortgage being Suit No. 2354 of 1931 and a decree for the sale of mortgaged properties was passed on 12th December 1932. On 13th February 1933, an order was passed recording certain terms of settlement wherein it Was provided that the properties would not be brought to sale for three years from 1st January 1933, the interest on the amount found due would run from 28th November 1932 at the rate of 81/4 per cent. per annum and the costs would be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. On 1st February 1937, the amount due swelled up to Rs. 72,000 odd. On that day the mortgagor sold a portion of the mortgaged premises at...
Tag this Judgment!BepIn Behary Law Vs. Mohit Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal496
ORDERSen, J.1. The present application raises a pure question of law and it seems to me that the question must be answered in favour of the petitioner. The plaintiff instituted a suit upon two mortgages and obtained a preliminary decree and thereafter a final decree. In execution of the decrees the mortgaged properties are sought to be put to sale and a reference is proceeding before the Registrar. The judgment-debtor contends that the decrees are nullities inasmuch as a portion of the mortgaged properties comprised in each of the mortgages is outside the original jurisdiction of this Court and inasmuch as leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent, to institute the suit in this Court has not been obtained. On this ground execution is resisted. It is admitted by learned Counsel for the opposite parties that some of the properties comprised in each of the mortgages are outside jurisdiction and that leave under Clause 12 had not been taken, but it is said that the decrees are nevertheless exe...
Tag this Judgment!Anila Bala Devi Vs. Madhabendu NaraIn Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal245
1. In the course of time the Jemo Raj family had divided itself into five branches called the Bara-taraf, Madhyam Turaf, Na-taraf, Ful-taraf and Chota taraf. In this appeal we are concerned with the Madhyam and the Na-tarafs only. Raja Saradindu Narayan Roy (called hereafter the Na Raja) was the proprietor of the Na-taraf. He had two sons Sibendu and Ardhendu. The proprietor of the Madhyam Taraf, Raja Purnendu Narayan had no male issue. He adopted Ardhendu, the youngest son of Raja Saradindu, and named him Rajendu, whose widow Anila Bala, is the appellant before us. Sibendu's wife is Santi Devi. Sibendu predeceased his father, the Na Raja, leaving two sons Amarendu and Dibyendu, who is the principal respondent in this appeal and was the plaintiff in the suit. It is his case that after the death of Rajendu he was adopted by Anila Bala and named Madhabendu. Rajendu and the Na Raja lived as members of a joint family till about 1926 when there was separation. While living jointly with the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »