Kolkata Court March 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.
ishu Prokash Ganguly Vs. A.K. Basu, Receiver to Estate of Insolvent, J ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal555
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, 24-Parganas, dated 9th September 1940, made in exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, in insolvency Case No. 46 of 1989. The facts material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows : The debtor Jamini Prokash Ganguly was adjudicated insolvent on his own application on 25th June 1940, and Mr. A.K. Basu the respondent in the appeal before us was appointed receiver in insolvency. The application for insolvency was presented by the debtor on 17th November 1939, and it was admitted on 23rd November following, when notices were issued to the creditors. Isha Prokash Ganguly, the appellant before us, is a relative and a creditor of the insolvent, and he got a decree against Jamini for a sum of about Rs. 4000 in the original side of this Court on 28th July 1939, just a few months before the latter applied for insolvency. This decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Noakhali, a...
Joy Gopal Singha and ors. Vs. Uday Chand Maharajadhiraj Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal282
1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtors and it is directed against an appellate Order of Mr. Simpson, District Judge of Hooghly, dated 8th December 1941, reversing a decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court of that place made in a proceeding under Section 47, Civil P.C. The facts in controversy lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows: The appellants held a patni under the Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan who is respondent before us. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent due in respect of the patni, being Rent Suit No. 2 of 1939, in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge of Hooghly and got a decree. Before the institution of the suit the patni was sold under Regn. 8 of 1819 and purchased by the Maharajadhiraj himself and the rent suit was for recovery of antecedent balances as well as unrealised portion of the dues for which the patni was sold. The decree-holder got the decree transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›