Kolkata Court February 1943 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.
Ajit Kumar Haldar Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal63
Mukherjea, J.1. The appellant before us is one Ajit Kumar Haldar who was adjudged an insolvent on his own application on 9th October 1939. In accordance with the direction contained in the Order of adjudication, he applied for his discharge on 5th November 1940. The learned District Judge, after hear-ing the parties and considering the report of the receiver, refused to make an Order of absolute discharge and the Order he has made is to the effect that the insolvent will not get his discharge until he has paid eight annas in the rupee. It is against this Order that the present appeal has been preferred. Dr. Basak who appears in support of the appeal has assailed the propriety of this Order on a twofold ground. His first contention is that the District Judge was wrong in holding that the appellant brought on his insolvency by rash and hazardous speculations and his second argument is that the Order made by the District Judge is an improper Order which is not contemplated by the provisio...
Pashupati Nath Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Sachi Nath Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal330
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : Three brothers to wit Janaki, Mathuranath and Jamini borrowed money from the Faridpore Loan Office on a mortgage of certain properties. The loan office instituted a suit on the mortgage against the three brothers and recovered a decree for over two lacs of rupees on 1st August 1927. The decree was satisfied by payments made by all the three brothers who had to borrow money for this purpose from Santosh's six annas estate. At the time of payment, there was a dispute I between the parties as regards the amount payable by each one of the mortgagors and the dispute centred round the sum of Rs. 1291-0-0 odd which according to Janaki was payable by Mathuranath while according to the latter it was to be paid by Janaki. Eventually Janaki paid this amount and later on he instituted a suit being Money Suit No. 10 of 1982 against Mathuranath and Jamini for recovery of this amount. The trial Court dismissed the suit against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›