Kolkata Court July 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.
Arjun Lal Vs. Banbehari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Cal328
Roxburgh, J.1. These appeals arise out of one judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol in a proceeding under Section 47, Civil P.C. instituted on an application by the Receiver of a certain trust property known as the Mukunda Madhusudan Trust Estate. Execution of a decree in Money Suit No. 288 of 1932 of the Dhanbad Court was proceeding in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol, the trust estate be-ing defendant 15 in that suit. Arjun Agarwalla, assignee of the decree in Money Suit No. 288 is the appellant in F. M. A. No. 132 while the Receiver Bon-behari Chatterjee, is the appellant in F. M.A. No. 192. The trial Court has held: (1) that the objector's contention that the decree in Money Suit No. 288 of 1932 is not valid against the trust estate cannot be raised in execution proceedings; (2) that notice under Order 21, Rule 16 was duly served on the trust estate; (3) that the act that the decree-holder had accepted certain sums from some of the judgment-debtors, viz., Rs. 15...
Chandra Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Kala Meah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal633
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the plaintiff. He alleges that he advanced Rs. 149 to the mother of the defendants. She executed a promissory note in his favour. As the stamp was not defaced, it could not be admitted into evidence. The plaintiff now seeks to recover on the original transaction. The learned Judge delivered a curious judgment. At first he appears to be in favour of the case made by the plaintiff. He then veers round towards the defence. In the end he is unable to make up his mind one way or the other. He solves the difficulty by saying that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the original transaction because he relies on the hand note in his deposition. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit should be retried. Mr. Chowdhury opposed the rule on two grounds. In the first place, he contended that no reliance was placed on the original transaction in the plaint. That document is certainly not very happily worded. It is, however, difficult to see why...
Monomohan Das Vs. Parswanath Das Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Cal588
ORDER1. This rule has been issued against an order in appeal of the Additional District Judge of Dacca, confirming an order of the Munsif of the Fourth Court, Munshiganj passed under Section 26G, Ben Ten. Act, 1885, granting to applicant 1 before him joint possession to the extent of eight annas share 6 in the disputed lands along with opposite party 2. The rule has been issued on the ground that Section 26G as amended by Act 18 of 1940 is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislatrue and has been obtained at the instance of the mortgagee. It is fairly clear that no question of ultra vires can arise in this matter for it cannot be contended that the subject matter of Section 263 as it stands after jamendment is not included in some or other (of the items in the Provincial List or the Concurrent List III of Schedule 7, Government of India Act. The form of the rule is therefore strictly speaking incorrect. The only question that can arise is whether any of the provisions of the amended secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›