Kolkata Court March 1943 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Gobinda Chandra Saha and anr. Vs. Rashmoni Dassya W/O Gobinda Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal470
Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 3rd October 1942, made by the Additional District Judge, Mymensingh under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act, reversing an order passed by the Appellate Officer of Kishoregunj under Section 40 of the same Act. The material facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated as follows : The petitioners before us advanced a sum of Rs. 35,000 to the husband of the opposite party on the basis of a simple mortgage bond executed by the latter on 13th December 1928. The petitioners instituted a suit for enforcement of the mortgage, and recovered a preliminary decree for a sum of about Rs. 40,000 on 19th February 1937. On 25th May 1937, the decree was made final. The final mortgage decree was put into execution in Title Execution case No. 66 of 1937 of the Court of the Sub-Judge at Mymensingh and a few days after the execution case was Started, the judgment-debtor on 27th June 1937, presented an application before the Dome...
Jabbor Mahi Alias Jabborullah Vs. Ramani Mohan Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal89
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 3 who alone contested the suit in the Courts below. The suit was for arrears of rent, and a two-fold defence was taken: first, a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, and secondly, that the rate of rent was not as the plaintiffs had claimed. Both the pleas were negatived, and a decree was passed at the rate claimed, which was Re. 1 per keor per year. The only question raised in this appeal is as to the rate of rent. It appears that the tenancy was originally created by a kabuliyat for a term of one year in which the rent stipulated was at the rate of 8 annas per keor. The defendants held over on the expiry of the term, and the plaintiffs thereafter sued them for rent. This suit was disposed of in terms of a compromise. By the solenama the rent was fixed at Re. 1 per keor, and it was further provided that there was to be no enhancement for 15 years. It is on this solenama which was made a part of the decree that the plaintiffs bas...
Usha Prova Dey Vs. Hriday Bashini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal389
Edgley, J.1. This Rule arises with reference to a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C. in which a dispute had arisen with regard to some plots of lands in a hat which were claimed by the first party as belonging to certain ganti tenures which had been created before the creation of a patni tenure which was purchased by the petitioner on 15th May 1939. The case for the second party was to the effect that, on 15th May 1939, she had purchased a patni including the disputed land at a patni sale held under the provisions of Patni Taluks Regn. 8 of 1819. According to her case notices annulling all the sub-tenures under the patni were served on 23rd July 1940, but, in spite of these notices, she was not allowed to take peaceful possession of the property which she had purchased. Thereafter, on 5th November 1940, the second party made an application to the District Judge to the effect that a proclamation might be served under the provisions of Section15 (2), Patni Taluks 'Regulation. An...
Radha Ballav Bose Vs. Nagendra Nath Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal364
ORDERDas, J.1. This is an application for review of taxation of the Taxing Officer in respect of the Bill of Costs of Messers. R. C. Basu & Co., attorneys for the applicants. The bill was lodged for taxation underthe decree passed on 24th July 1941 on an originating summons which was marked as Suit No. 706 of 1939 Order S.2. The originating summons was concerned with the will dated 3rd August 1863 of Raja Sir Radhakanta Deb Bahadur who died on 19th April 1867. The will was duly probated on 1st May 1867.3. By his will the Raja appointed two persons as executors and trustees and gave directions to them to pay Rs. 300 to each of his three sons separately with remainder to their respective children and descendants per stirpes. There were various other legacies which it is not necessary to refer to for the purpose of this application.4. Shortly after the death of the Raja his will became the subject-matter of litigation in this Court which went upto the Court on appeal. By the decree passed...
Nanda Kishore Goswami and anr. Vs. Bally Co-operative Credit Society, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal255
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These two analogous appeals arise out of two execution proceedings commenced by the Bally Cooperative Credit Society Limited who is the respondent before us, on the basis of two awards, obtained against the appellants in the two appeals under Rule 22 of the rules framed under Section 43, Co-operative Societies Act (2 of 1912). The judgment-debtors appellants raised certain objections to the execution proceedings and they were substantially of a two-fold character. In the first place, it was argued that in view of the provisions of Section 46, Arbitration Act, it was necessary for the co-operative credit society to get a judgment and decree upon the award under Section 17, Arbitration Act, before it could be enforced as a decree, and as the time for filing the award in Court had already elapsed in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Act, the award was altogether unenforceable. The other contention was that the award was not a proper award inasmuch as...
Bhabani Prosad Moitra and ors. Vs. Satyendra Nath Mukherjee S/O Satish ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal372
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order dated 2nd April 1942 made by the Subordinate Judge, Birbhurn, rejecting an application of the petitioners for re-opening of a mortgage decree under Section 86, Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The facts material for our present purposes lie within a small compass and may be stated as follows : The father of the petitioners took a loan of a sum of Rs. 15,000 from the opposite party on the basis of a mortgage bond executed on 24th January 1920. In the year 1933, the opposite party instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage bond and a preliminary decree was passed on 29th April 1935. The decree was made final on 2nd September 1935 and the amount found due to the mortgagee was Rs. 37,633 odd. The final decree was executed in Title Execution Case No. 173 of 1935 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Suri, and the mortgaged properties were sold on 2nd May 1936 and purchased by the mortgagee deeree-holder himself for as. 25,000. Delivery ...
Hazareemull Heeralal Vs. Balaram Chatterjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal640
ORDERDas, J.1. Two matters were mentioned before me namely, suit No. 1467 pf 1936, Durgadutt Jalan v. Rai Charan Monmohan Saha and suit No. 528 of 1942, Hazarimull Heeralal v. Balaram Chatterjee and Anr. I propose to dispose of both the matters by this judgment. Money decrees were passed in each of the two suits and thereafter applications were made in each of the two suits for transmission of the decrees to different Courts of the District Judge within whose respective jurisdiction the judgment-debtors were alleged to have properties so as to enable the respective plaintiffs to take execution proceedings in those respective Courts. On each of those applications the usual order for transmission was made, in the first case (Suit No. 1467 of 1936) by Khundkar J. and in the second case (suit No. 528 of 1942) by the learned Master of this Court.2. It appears, however, that the judgment-debtors in both the suits had, in the meantime, sought to take the benefit of the provisions of the Benga...
Hosainali Raj Vs. Barisal Rindan Samity Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Cal141
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is barred under the provisions of Section 102, Civil P.C.; but inasmuch as the ground taken can be equally urged in revision, this is a matter of only academic interest. The point was argued in the Court below as one of limitation though it is really one of jurisdiction. The last day for applying for execution was 11th May 1941. The application upon which the present execution proceedings are going on was actually filed on 10th May 1941. Therefore no question of limitation could possibly arise. 2. The point of jurisdiction arises in this way: The decree was passed in the small cause Court and has been transferred for execution to the ordinary Court. I do not think the question of jurisdiction is in any way affected by the fact that at this particular time the same officer happened to be presiding over both the Courts. The application for transfer of the decree was made on 7th April 1941 before it was barred by limitation. Under Order 21 Rule 10 an applicatio...
Sk. Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. Maharaj Uday Chand Mahatab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal358
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtors and it is directed against an appellate order of B.S. Simson Esqr., District Judge of Hooghly, dated 23rd August 1941, reversing an order of the Munsif, first Court, of that place made on an application under Section 168A(2), Ben. Ten. Act. The material facts are not disputed and may be shortly stated as follows : The Maharaja of Burdwan, who is respondent in this appeal, obtained a decree against the appellants and their cosharers for arrears of rent due in respect of a putni taluk held by the latter under him. The decree was for arrears of rent due for the years 1842 to 1344 B.S. and was obtained in December 1939. The putni itself was sold under Regn. 8 of 1819 on 15th November 1938 and was purchased by a stranger. The rent suit which was instituted after the sale, was for recovery of antecedent balances of the putni rent which would not be paid out of the sale proceeds of the tenure under Section 17 of the Patni Regulation. The ...
Bengal Jute Mills Vs. Jewraj Heeralal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal304
McNair, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an award. The award in question was made on 19th May 1942, and the application to set aside that award was made on 1st August 1942. A preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the application is misconceived because the award has not been filed and is not before the Court. The question now before me was raised in the Bombay High Court in Ratanji Virpal v. Dhirajlal Manilal ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 101. The head-note of that case is as follows:2. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, till the award has been filed in Court, it is not competent to a party to an arbitration to file a petition to set aside the award. In cases where it is necessary to have the validity of an award ascertained and the award has not been filed in Court it is open to a party to the arbitration to proceed under Section 14(2), Arbitration Act, to have the award filed in Court.' It is clear that under the Arbitration Act of 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »