Kolkata Court July 1942 Judgments
Bhupal Chandra Sircar and ors. Vs. Jagad Bhusan Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal344
1. This is an appeal by defendants 10 to 15 in a suit for possession of some lands. The facts which are not in dispute are these : The lands in suit belonged to one Ashutosh Sirkar. He was governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. He died leaving a widow and a daughter by a pre-deceased wife. The widow transferred the disputed lands to the father of the appellants by an unregistered kobala for Rs. 200 on 6th December 1924, for legal necessity. The father of the appellants was in possession of the disputed lands on the basis of this kobala during his life-time. After his death the appellants are in possession of the disputed lands. The widow, after the execution of the unregistered kobala died. Her step-daughter after her death sold the disputed lands to the plaintiff respondents. The latter, after their purchase, raised the present suit for recovery of possession of the disputed lands. The question is whether on these facts the appellants are entitled to retain possession of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoynagar Tea Co., Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Tea Licensing Committee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal156
1. These three appeals under Clause 15, Letters Patent, are by the owners of three tea gardens one in the Terai in the district of Darjeeling, and two in the Doars in the district of Jalpaiguri. They are direct. ft ed against the decision of Edgley J. dismissing three appeals preferred by them under 8.1, Tea Control Act, 1988, against three orders of the Indian Tea Licensing Committee constituted under the Tea Control Act, 1938, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'), determining their export quota for the year 1988-39 under Section 14 of the said Act. The material portion of Section 14 is in these terms:(2) The export quota of a tea estate, that is, the total quantity of tea which may be exported by the owner of the tea estate during the financial year, shall be an amount bearing to the crop basis of the estate as determined by the committee in accordance with the principles set forth in the Schedule the ft same proportion as the Indian export allotment for the financial year in...
Tag this Judgment!Mati Lal Dutta and ors. Vs. Bejoy Lal Alias Nath Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal455
1. Bijay Lal Chakrakarty, respondent 1 and the principal defendant in the suit, became liable to the Bagherhat Loan Company Ltd. (hereafter called the company) for the sum of Rs. 12,891 odd. To secure the said sum he executed a mortgage in favour of the said company on 28th August 1908. The company thereafter fell into difficulties, with the result that a scheme was prepared under Section 153, Companies Act, and sanctioned j by the Court. By that scheme a body called the distribution board was formed and that body was invested with the power of distributing the assets of the company amongst its depositors and creditors in satisfaction of their dues. By a resolution of 30th September 1931 the said board fixed (after rateably reducing them) the dues of the several creditors who are the two original plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants 2 to 11 in this suit, and in pursuance of the said resolution the company transferred to those creditors, by several deeds of assignments, fractional sh...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Dutta Vs. Sm. Saibalini Debi W/O Abinash Chandra Banerje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal356
1. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are these: Patni taluk lot ghea is under Touzi No. 11 of the Burdwan Collectorate of which the Maharaja of Burdwan is the proprietor. It was sold under the Patni Regulations in 1932. At this sale, the plaintiff's vendor purchased the patni taluk. The chowkidari chakran lands within lot ghea were resumed in the year 1898-99. After this resumption, these lands were transferred to the Maharaja of Burdwan under the Village Chowkidari Act. The Maharaja was in possession of these lands till 1916. The patnidars of lot ghea entered into possession of these lands in 1917 and remained in possession till 1929 without executing any fresh lease in favour of the Maharaja. In the year 1930, the Maharaja granted a patni lease of these chakran lands to the patnidars of lot ghea. The material portion of this patni lease is this:If in future the patni right in the said lot ghea be transferred or extinguished for default in the payment of arrears of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Adinath Bhattacharjee Vs. Krishna Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal474
1. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 are joint owners of a tank which is the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal. Plaintiffs' case is that defendants 1 to 3, though they have got only a small share in the tank, are in exclusive possession of the whole tank and consequently they are entitled to joint possession. Defendants 4 to 9 support the plaintiffs' case. Defendant 10 did not appear in the suit. The defence of defendants 1 to 3 is that defendant 1 is in possession of the 16 annas share of the disputed tank as a tenant under all the owners of the tank at an annual rent of Rs. 10 and consequently the plaintiffs are not entitled to joint possession. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that defendant 1 is a tenant from month to month and his tenancy was not determined by a notice to quit under Section 106, T.P. Act. On a second appeal to this Court by the plaintiffs their suit has been decreed by Henderson J. The finding of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gaibandha Loan Office Ltd. Vs. Mt. Saiyadunnessa Khatun W/O Mahammad A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal114
1. One Gour Benode Choudhry was a part proprietor of Touzi No. 668 B (1) of the Rangpore Collectorate. He borrowed money from the Gaibandha Loan Office (hereafter called the bank) by mortgaging 36 mauzas of the said zamindary. The said bank enforced its mortgage and got a final decree for sale before the year 1928. In 1929 the mortgaged properties were sold in execution of that mortgage decree and purchased by the bank but the sale was set aside and there has not been any sale since then in execution of that decree. On 3rd June 1929 Gour Benode sold by five kobalas specified villages of the said zamindary to the five plaintiffs - namely, 23 villages to plaintiff 1, one village to plaintiff 2, one village to plaintiff 3, five villages to plaintiff 4 and 20 villages to plaintiff 5, Ajimuddin Mia Pahlowan. Plaintiff 1 is the wife and plaintiff 4 is a son of plaintiff 5. Out of the DO villages so sold, plaintiff 5, his wife and his son purchased 48 villages between them and the remaining t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Bhadani and anr. Vs. Dass Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Cal143
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is a commercial suit. Although argued on both sides by counsel comparatively junior in the profession it was, if I may say so, as ably prepared and presented as any ease that I have heard in this Court, and that is saying a good deal. Although the plaintiff will succeed nothing more, in my opinion, could have been done by Mr. P.B. Mookerjee to whose arguments on behalf of the defendants I shall refer and the same must be said of Mr.Bachawat and Mr.Sethia who appeared for the plaintiffs.2. The short facts are as follows: On 12th May 1941, one' Mohanlal Desai, the bent of whose particular genius will appear from the circumstances of the case, opened an account with the defendants, the Dass Bank, with Rs.500. This account is exhibited and in the light of what subsequently transpired tells its own little story. On 9th June 1941, this account stood to credit at Rs.5 and on the same day the credit amounted to Rs.2605. On 10th June 1941, Rs. 2500 had been withdrawn and th...
Tag this Judgment!Baikuntha Nath Haldar S/O Kailash Chandra Haldar Vs. Kishori Mohan Ban ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal133
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an appellate order of Mr. S.K. Ganguly, Additional District Judge, Alipore, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 256 of 1941, affirming an order made by the Sub-Judge, fourth Court of that place, in exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, under Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : The petitioner before us was adjudicated an insolvent on his own application on 26th July 1940. The adjudication order directed the insolvent to apply for his discharge within 26th January 1941. The insolvent as it appears from the order sheet, did put in an application for discharge on 21st January 1941, but as the requisite process fees were not paid, the application was not heard on that date. After several adjournments it came up for hearing on 16th May 1941 and as the insolvent was absent on that date the Court made the following order:The insolvent does neither appear nor take any ste...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Mian S/O Abdul Gani and ors. Vs. Rajaram Barai S/O Joydeb Barui ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal177
ORDER1. This rule is directed against an appellate order made by the Subordinate Judge, Fourth Court, Dacca, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 207 of 1941 affirming an order of the Munsif, Third Court of that place by which an application made by the petitioners under Section 26(g)(5), Ben. Ten. Act, was rejected. The petitioners' case was that on 1st December 1925 they had executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in favour of the opposite parties in respect of certain land described in the petition, to secure an advance of Rs. 1000 received from the latter; and as more than 15 years had elapsed from the date of the registration of the mortgage deed they prayed for restoration of the mortgaged property under Section 26(g)(5), Ben. Ten. Act. This application was resisted by the opposite parties principally on the ground that the petitioners had no title to the mortgaged property at the date when the mortgage bond was executed. The trial Court upheld this contention of the opposite parties and re...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Nath Roy Vs. Kanakendra Nath Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Cal17
ORDERMcnair, J.1. The plaintiff applies to vary a report made by the Registrar, dated 24th April 1942. That report was made on a reference in a mortgage suit. The mortgage was dated 14th April 1931, the principal sum secured was Rs. 1,35,000, and the rate of interest agreed upon was 10 per cent, reducible to 9 tier cent, on regular quarterly payments. On 16th July 1934 there was a further charge of Rs. 35,000 with similar provisions. The mortgagors paid the interest regularly up till July 1936. The suit in which this reference was made, was filed by the mortgagee in 1937. On 3rd June 1938 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed and the matter was referred to the Registrar for taking accounts. On 1st December 1941, on an application under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the decree was reopened and the Registrar was directed to take a fresh account in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, interest to be computed at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum simple, from t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »