Kolkata Court February 1942 Judgments
Kumud Behari Sen and ors. Vs. Satyabrata Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal169
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Sen J., whereby he dismissed an application by the defendants in the original suit which was a mortgage suit for relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1940. It has been contended at great length that no appeal lies from the decision of Sen J., dismissing the appellants' application. I am of the opinion that this is an original application for relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act which has been refused by the learned Judge, who in such refusal has delivered a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent. Prom that judgment, in my opinion, an appeal lies to this Court under Clause 15, Letters Patent. The debt is one of old standing and apparently it was consolidated on 6th October 1918, and thereafter the interest payable exceeded the maximum permitted under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, that is to say, eight per cent, simple interest. Counsel for the respondent in the application contended that there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mohan Chatterjee Vs. Suresh Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal170
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Edgley J. delivered on April 4, 1941 Reported in : AIR1942Cal121 , in an application for relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1940. The applicant was one of three persons who mortgaged certain properties to the mortgagee, Suresh Chandra Mukherjee, on 23rd March 1932. The principal amount secured was Rs. 15,000 and the rate of interest was ten per cent, per annum with quarterly rests reducible to nine per cent, if regular payments were made. Apparently payments were in arrears because on 19th February 1937, a pre. liminary mortgage decree was passed in Suit 5 No. 1146 of 1936, the plaintiff being the mortgagee Suresh Chandra Mukherjee. Pursuant to that preliminary decree, the Registrar of Original Side of this Court took an account of what was due to the plaintiff as principal and interest under the mortgage and on 7th December 1937, the Registrar reported to the Court that the total sum due for principal and interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Hui and ors. Vs. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal429
1. The questions involved in this appeal relate to the newly enacted Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, inserted by the Bengal Council Act 18 of 1940 (The Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940), which came into force on 9th January 1914. The decree in question is for arrears of rent due in respect of a patni tenure held under tauzi No. 2409 of the Midnapur Collectorate. The entire patni was sold away by the defendant patnidars in 1938 (1344-45 B.S.) in fractional portions. The suit for the arrears of rent due for the period from 1342 B.S. to Falgoon 1345 B.S. was instituted by the decree-holders against the present defendants on 26th March 1939. In this suit the transferees of the patni were not made parties. The tauzi was sold away for arrears of revenue on 24th June 1939. In the rent suit the defendants inter alia took the plea, that as the patni has been sold away by them they were no longer liable for the arrears. This defence was overruled and the suit was decreed on 14th May 1940. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Haricharan Karanjai Vs. Ulipur Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal442
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the decree-holder, and is directed against an appellate order of the District Judge of Rangpur, affirming that of the Subordinate Judge of that place, made in a proceeding under Section 47, Civil P. C. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows : The appellant was a depositor in the Ulipur Bank Ltd., and obtained a decree against the latter in respect of his deposit money on 8th July 1933. The Ulipur Bank which figures as the respondent in this appeal was in financial difficulties from some time past, and in or about April 1933, it embarked upon a scheme of arrangement and compromise with its creditors under Section 153, Companies Act. The application under that section was presented by the bank to this Court on 10th April 1933; and an order was made on 17th May 1933, directing the convening of a meeting of the depositors of the said Bank. The meeting was held on 30th July 1933, when the scheme was settled and it was finally san...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Mridha Vs. Amina Khatun D/O Abbas Mridha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal539
Biswas, J.1. In this case the learned District Judge of Faridpur has dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution on the ground that the appellant failed to pay the additional court-fee on his memorandum of appeal which has been demanded of him. The appeal arose out of a suit by a Mahomedan wife against her husband in which she asked for a divorce. At the hearing the defendant, though previously served with summons, failed to appear. One witness was thereupon examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and on this evidence, the learned Munsif holding the claim proved made an ex parte decree on 25th November 1937 declaring the marriage dissolved. There was an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C, for setting aside the decree, which ultimately failed. The defendant had also taken an appeal to the District Judge, and it is against the dismissal of this appeal on the ground stated that the present appeal is directed.2. It appears that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 15 as court-fee on her...
Tag this Judgment!Sankari Debi and ors. Vs. Co-operative Urban Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal584
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the District Judge of Pabna passed on 26th November 1940, in a proceeding under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act. The material facts lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows : One Annada Gobinda Chakravarty a medical practitioner at Serajganj in the district of Pabna was adjudicated an insolvent on his own application by the District Judge of Pabna on 7th January 1939; and respondent 6 was appointed a receiver on the same day. On 6th October 1939, the Co-operative Urban Bank of Serajganj, who is respondent 1 in this appeal, and was the principal creditor of the insolvent, filed an application before the receiver, stating inter alia that a house property within the Serajganj Municipality was owned and possessed by the insolvent, though the deed of purchase stood in the name of his first wife Labanya Probba Debi. The receiver was asked to take steps with regard to that property under Section 4, Provinci...
Tag this Judgment!Brojendra Mohan Maitra, Trustee to Estate of Radha Raman Chaudhury Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal58
Mohamad Akram, J.1. These two appeals by the plaintiff landlord arise out of the two of the suits for recovery of arrears of rent. There were three suits instituted, viz., Suits Nos. 1687, 1688 and 1689 of the year 1938, but the appeals before us relate only to two of them, viz., Suits Nos. 1687 and 1689 in which rent was claimed for the years 1341 to 1344 B. Section at Rs. 16 and Rs. 15 per year respectively on the allegation that the tenants had been paying at that rate since 1314 B.S.; there was also an alternative claim for additional rent for additional area under Section 52, Ben. Ten. Act. The I plea in defence by the tenants who were different in the different suits was that the claim put forward by the landlord was illegal, the enhancement being in contravention of the provision of Section 29, Ben. Ten. Act, and that the jama in each of the two suits was a consolidated jama of Rs. 10-4-0 per year. Both the Courts below dismissed the claim for additional rent under Section 52, B...
Tag this Judgment!Nripendra Chand Saha Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Jowadali Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal423
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit commenced by them to recover possession of the lands in suit, on establishment of their title to the same. The material facts lie within a small compass and may be narrated as follows: By certain collectorate partitions the plaintiffs have come to own the entirety, of tauzi No. 14198 of the Mymehsingh Collectorate. Under this touzi there was a non-transferable occupancy holding in possession of one Indramoni Dasya, consisting of four plots of land, to wit, C.S. Dags Nos. 686, 688, 801 and 13 acres of Dag 687. In 1927, Indramoni sold all the lands Of the holding with the exception of 434 acres of land of holding No. 686 to the present defendant. In 1928, the Bengal Tenancy Act was amended, making all occupancy holdings transferable in law, and in 1936 Indramoni transferred the residue of the holding amounting to 34 acres of land possessed by her to one Kali Prasanna. The plaintiffs as landlords, thereupon exerc...
Tag this Judgment!indu Bhusan Pal Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Cal440
ORDER1. This rule was issued unpon the District Magistrate of Hughly to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed upon one Indu Bhusan Pal should not be set aside. Indu Bhusan Pal and one Krishna Arya were jointly tried under Section 411, Penal Code, on the charge that they at or about 14th February 1941 at Queen Street, Serampore, dishonestly received and retained a wrist-watch, a gold champa and four silver buttons knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen properties. The learned Magistrate found the case against Krishna Arya had not been proved. He accordingly acquitted that accused. He found the case against Indu Bhusan Pal had been satisfactorily proved. He convicted Indu Bhusan Pal under Section 411, Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. An appeal to the Sessions Judge of Hughly was dismissed. It has been urged before us that on the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge the guilt of the petitioner Indu Bhusa...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemati Usharani Roy Choudhurani in Re.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR199(Cal)
.PANCKRIDGE, J.-The question raised by this Reference is not altogether an easy one.The reference is made at the instance of Mrs. Usharani Roy Choudhury, the widow and personal representative of one Mr. N. K. Roy Choudhury who died on May 12, 1938.Mr. Roy Choudhury was, during his life-time, the managing agent of a limited company known as the Bengal River Steam Company Ltd. He was remunerated upon a commission basis calculated on the tonnage carried by the Company. It appears that he was not in the habit of drawing his commission or, at any rate all of it, regularly, for at the date of his death a sum of Rs. 18,748 was due from the company to him on that account. Of this sum, according to the calculations made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Rs. 2,668 represented the commission earned in the period from April 1, 1938, to May 12, 1938. The balance, some Rs. 16,000 represented commission earned prior to April 1,1938.After Mr. Roy Choudhurys death the company paid the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »