Kolkata Court July 1941 Judgments
In Re: Bengal Silk Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal461
ORDERLort-Williams, J.1. This is a petition by Mahomed Solaiman Ariff alias Section Monawar Nawab Ariff, who prays for rectification of the register of members of the respondent company. He states that Mt. Fatma. Begum (since deceased) of No. 8, Amratolla Lane, who is the registered holder of six shares in the capital of the company, was the petitioner's grandmother. He says that he is the present holder of the shares for valuable consideration, as he holds a duly executed instrument of transfer in his favour. He presented this instrument to the company, together with the share script on 4th March 1941 for registration but on 5th March 1941 he was told that the directors had refused to register the transfer, without giving any reason therefor. It appears that on 22nd March 1897 these six shares were issued in favour of Mi Fatma Begum. On 5th December ld28 she transferred the shares in blank to one Mr. A.S.A. Suhrawardy for Rs. 2100 and on 10th December 1940 he transferred the shares in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal516
ORDERWilliams, J.1. This is the petition of Prafulla Kumar Basu, who asks for an order for rectification of the register of members of the respondent company by restoring the petitioner's name as the holder of 1500 ordinary shares. He states that he was the registered holder of 1500 ordinary shares in the capital of the company, having applied for allotment on or about 6th January 1940 and having paid Rs. 1500 to the company along with his application for and on behalf of one Kamta Prosad Bhargava. The company decided to treat the petitioner as the absolute owner of the shares and declined to recognise Bhargava as having any right in the said shares or to register the transfer of the shares to him. On 2nd February 1941 the petitioner received a letter from the company informing him that the sum of Rs. 13,500 due for calls on his shares was long overdue, 'as per details given below,' namely:Allotment money 3000 due date 10-2-40.1st call money 3000 due date 31-5-40.2nd call money 3000 du...
Tag this Judgment!Western India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Asima Sirkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal412
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Panokridge J,, and the decree consequent thereon whereby he adjudged that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover a sum of rupees five thousand and profits from the defendants in respect of Life Insurance Policy No. 28484 issued by the defendants on 11th June 1935. The policy was taken out by Jadunath Sarkar who was a Government Official in the Province of Bengal. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Jadunath Sarkar. The policy itself was the result of a proposal and declaration made by Jadunath on 14th May 1935, the proposal being accepted the defendant company after a medical examination of Jadunath by their doctor. Jadunath was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhag Sohool of Hindu law, who died intestate on 4th April 1938, the due premiums having been in the meantime paid. The defendants declined to pay the sum payable under the policy on the ground (a) that Jadunath untruly stated in his proposal that no proposal on his lif...
Tag this Judgment!Ramendra Narayan Roy and anr. Vs. Smt. Bibhabati Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal488
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Raja Rajendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal died leaving three sons as his heirs, Kumar Ranendra Narajan, Ramendra Naraian and Rabindra Narayan. Ranendra Narayan and Rabindra Narayan died childless leaving widows, who inherited their respective shares. It was alleged that the second son, Ramendra Narayan, had also died childless in 1909 leaving his wife Srimati Bibhabati Debi as his heir. In 1911-1912 the Court of Wards took over the management of the whole of the Bhowal Raj estate on behalf of the widows of Ranendra and Rabindra and also on behalf of Srimati Bibhabati Debi. The plaintiff, who is the applicant before us, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca for a declaration that he was Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second son of Raja Rajendra Narayan, and was so entitled to an undivided third share of the Bhowal Raj estate and for possession of the said share. Srimati Bibhabati Debi was the principal defendant in that suit. That suit, which was later ...
Tag this Judgment!Mritunjoy Roy and anr. Vs. Netai Chand Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal123
ORDERSen, J.1. These are two applications under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The first is by the decree-holders under Section 35 of the Act, while the second is by the judgment-debtors under Section 36 of the aforesaid Act. The applications have been heard together and this order will govern both of them. The plaintiffs obtained a final decree upon two mortgages on 2nd July 1940. This decree affects certain puisne mortgagees as well, but they have not appeared on these applications. The interest specified in the mortgage bonds were 71/2 per cent. and 12 per cent. per annum respectively with quarterly rests. A final decree was passed granting the mortgagees interest at those rates, and interest on judgment at 6 per cent. Thereafter the decree-holders brought the mortgaged premises to sale. The price specified in the sale proclamation of the property was Rs. 44,000. The mortgagee decree-holders obtained leave to bid and bid up to Rs. 38,000 for the property. This was the highest bid. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Tarapada Banerjee and ors. Vs. AjimaddIn Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal699
Biswas, J.1. This rule arises out of an application under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act, which was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan on the ground that the borrowers were not entitled to any relief. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : One Satya Charan Mukherjee died, leaving a widow, Tulsi Devi, a son, Kamalesh and three daughters. Kamalesh inherited his father's properties, but he died intestate and unmarried, leaving his widowed mother Tulsi Devi as his sole heiress. Tulsi Devi died in Ashar 1341 B.S., and upon her death the properties of Kamalesh devolved on the petitioners as the next reversioners, being the daughters' sons of Tulsi Devi. It appears that on 7th July 1920, Tulsi Devi borrowed a sum of Rs. 1500 from the opposite party, Azimuddin Mullick on the security of some of her properties. The loan carried interest at the rate of Re. 1/8 per cent, per month. Later on, on various dates in the year 1924, Tulsi Devi borrowed further sums from ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Chandra Lahiri and ors. Vs. Moulvi Muhammad Abdus Sobhan Sahe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal142
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has arisen in connexion with proceedings under Section 88, Bengal Tenancy Act. The question for consideration is whether Section 75A, Sub-section (2) has any application to a decree for enhancement made by a revenue officer tinder Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. In the present case the actual enhancement was decreed before this section came into force but the decree of the appellate Court was made after it. The only way in which the question can be brought within the range of Section 115 is to contend that by misunderstanding the law the Munsif has apportioned a rent which does not exist. I will therefore proceed upon that point of view. The relevant words of the Sub-section are as follows:All decrees and orders enhancing rent passed under any of the provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be inoperative from the date of such decree or order until the expiry of the ten years referred to in Sub-section (1).2. The Sub-section therefore has nothing to do w...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Prosad Saha Vs. Bachu Lal Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal215
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. (F.M.A. No. 164 of 1940) - This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, Birbhum, dated 28th May 1940, passed under Section 25, Guardian and Wards Act, directing that the minor, Chittaranjan Gupta should be returned to the custody of his father Bechu Lal Gupta, the respondent-petitioner. The infant is a boy aged only eight years and a few months. He was born in December 1932 at Suri in the house of his maternal grandfather, Jwala Prosad Saha, who is the appellant before us. His mother died only six days after his birth, and it is not disputed that he has been in the house of his maternal grand parents since then and brought up by them as their own son. It was on 27th March 1940 that Bechu Lal Gupta, the father of the minor, made this application as his natural guardian, under Section 25, Guardian and Wards Act, praying that the child might be restored to his custody. The application was opposed by his maternal grandfather Jwala Prosad Saha on seve...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Ranjan Bhattacharjya Vs. Surendra Chandra Ghosal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal149
Biswas, J.1. This rule arises out of an application under Section 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act. It was dismissed by the learned Munsif of Chittagong. The application was thrown out on two grounds. In the first place, it was stated that the Bengal Moneylenders Act in so far as it dealt with loans on promissory notes was ultra vires. But in this case there was a decree on the promissory note, and we are concerned with the question of recovery of the amount due under the decree in execution thereof. On the authority of a Special Bench of this Court in Harsukdas Balkissendas v. Dhirendra Nath Roy : AIR1941Cal498 by which we are bound, it is not possible, therefore, to support the view taken by the learned Munsif. The second ground on which the learned Munsif holds that the application is incompetent is that it does not come within the terms of Clause (a) of Sub-section (6) of Section 36. Clause (a) requires that the decree must be passed in a 'suit to which this Act applies.' The learned Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Nator Raj Ward's Estate Vs. On death of Saber Sardar his heir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Cal658
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is a reference made by the Munsif of Nator under Order 46, Civil P. C, and he has invited our opinion on a question of law arising under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 (Bengal Act 7 of 1936). A rent suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif, by the manager, Nator Raj Ward's Estate, against certain tenants on 12th April 1940, and rent was claimed for the years 1343 to Pous 1346 B.S. After the suit was instituted the defendants approached the Debt Settlement Board at Bharabari, and notice was issued by the latter under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, requesting the Munsif to stay all further proceedings in connexion with the suit. In pursuance of this notice, the Munsif made an order of stay on 22nd May 1940. In July 1940, the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was amended, and under Section 2, Clause (8) of the amended Act, the word 'debt' includes liabilities incurred prior to 1st January 1940. As a liability incurred subsequent to 1st Jan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »