Skip to content

Kolkata Court August 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.

Aug 09 1943

United Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Sreelakshmi Motor Transport Co. Lt ...

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-09-1943

Reported in: AIR1945Cal260

1. The plaintiffs are three private limited companies registered under the Companies Act. Their business is carriage of goods and passengers by motor vehicles. In 1937 when the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 (8 of 1914) was in force they obtained permits to ply 22 motor vehicles of different types on the Sylhet-Shillong Road from 1st April 1937 to 31st December 1939. These permits were issued by the Assam Government, for that was the authority to issue permits under rules framed under Section 11 of the said Act. In 1939 the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 4 of 1939, came into force on 1st July 1939. By Section 134 of the last mentioned Act, hereafter called 'the Act,' the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914 were kept in force, subject to some limitation and conditions not material to these appeals, for a period of nine months from the date on which the Act of 1939 came into force, that is to say, those rules remained in force up to 31st Mar...


Aug 04 1943

Nani Bai Baishyani W/O Lakshmi Chand Agarwalla Vs. Maliram Agarwalla a ...

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Aug-04-1943

Reported in: AIR1944Cal161

Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal against an Order of the Subordinate Judge, Nadia, refusing to ignore a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, at the instance of the decree-holder. The Court has directed the decree-holder to move the Debt Settlement Board at Shikarpur which issued the notice to vacate the order. It appears that the execution proceedings with which we are concerned were first delayed by an application of the judgment-debtors to the Debt Settlement Board at Durgapur. That application was dismissed and on appeal, the Sub-divisional Officer as Appellate Officer stated that it was absolutely clear that the debtor appellants had been attempting to use the provisions of the Act with a view to defeat the creditors. He accordingly upheld the decision of the Durgapur Debt Settlement Board. Thereafter the judgment-debtors filed a petition under Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act, which in turn was dismissed. Next a notice was obtained under Section 34, Bengal...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial