Kolkata Court February 1944 Judgments
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, on Behalf of Provinc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal119
Edgley, J.1. This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of legal affairs, Bengal, against an order of acquittal passed by Mr. B.G. Kanjilal, Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranaghat, on 31-7-1943, in respect of a prosecution under Section 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The case for the prosecution was to the effect that on 22-5-1943, the sub-divisional officer of Ranaghat went to the shop of Abinash Chandra Roy, and found there 221 bags of paddy which had not been entered in the stock register prescribed under the Food Grains Control Order, dated 21-5-1942. The case for the defence was to the effect that these bags of paddy belonged not to Abinash Chandra Roy but to a man named Mohiuddin who had deposited them in the godown of Abinash Chandra Roy in order that they might be stored and sold by Mohiuddin himself when the occasion arose. The accused contended that in these circumstances, it was not necessary for him to make any entry in the register prescribed under the Food Grains C...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Nivanani Debi W/O Jaharlal Bhattacherjee and anr. Vs. Chhakuram Do ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal416
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the decree holders. The question involved is the application of Section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act. It is unfortunate that the respondent is not represented but Mr. Sen has put the case fairly before me. The suit was for rent due on a jalkar. The present execution application is for the sale of certain Nishkar properties. The judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 47, Civil P.C, to the effect that such execution is barred under Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act. Two arguments have been put forward in support of the appeal- (1) that Section 193, Ben. Ten. Act, does not include the execution proceedings and (2) that Section 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, is excluded by its terms. In my opinion, the term 'suit' in Section 193 is sufficiently wide to include execution proceedings. In dealing with the second point the learned District Judge held that the section would not apply if the lease was not a pure jalkar but included the sub-soil. As, however, there is no...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Basanti Bala Dassi Vs. Jogesh Chandra Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal233
ORDERDas, J.1. In this application for review of taxation of costs, Mr. B.C. Dutt appearing for the defendants has not taken, before me, any exception to any specific item in the Bill of costs but has rested himself on two broad questions of principle which I shall presently formulate. In order, however, to appreciate the questions raised before me it is necessary to state the following facts.2. This was a suit on a mortgage in which the total sum due for principal did not exceed Rs. 4000. It was instituted on 24-3-1939. At the date of the institution of this suit, Rules 100 and 105 of ch. 36 of the Rules of this Court provided special scales of taxation of costs of a mortgage suit in ?which the total sum due for principal did not exceed Rs. 2500. Therefore at the date of the institution of this suit, Rules 100 and 105 did not apply to the costs of this suit. During the pendency of this suit, the heading under which Rules 100 and 105 were grouped and those rules were amended and the am...
Tag this Judgment!Arratoon and Co. Vs. Mimraj Puranmull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal262
Das, J.1. This is an application for the execution of the decree passed in this suit. The suit was filed in 1931 by the plaintiff firm against Mimraj Puranmull, described as a firm in the cause title of the plaint. It was for the recovery of Rs. 22,727-0-6 due to the plaintiff firm in respect of certain dealings and transactions in shel lac, Kiri lac and other lac products. The writ of summons in the suit was, with the leave of this Court under Order 30, Rule 3, Civil P.C., served on Mimraj, Puranmull, Hardattrai and Jodhraj as four of the partners of the defendant firm. No appearance having been entered by any of the four partners served as aforesaid or by any other partner, the suit came up for hearing as an undefended suit and an ex parte decree was passed on 14-12-1931 for Rs. 22,727-0-6 with costs and interest on judgment at 6 per cent, per annum. The costs of the plaintiff firm having been taxed an allocatur was issued on 23-5-1932 for Rs. 316-12-0.2. On or about 21-6-1935 the de...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew Vs. Globe theatres Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal200
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiff deity is the appellant, suing by his shebait and next friend, and is the owner of No. 7, Lindsay Street Calcutta, (hereinafter called 'No. 7'). The premises consist of shops on the ground floor and flats and offices on the upper part which are let to separate tenants. On the ground floor there is a wide corridor running north and south, between two shops, through the block; the north end enters Lindsay Street and the south end is opposite to an entrance to Nos. 4 and 4A, Madge Lane. There is a staircase at the south end and on the west side of the corridor which leads to the upper part of No. 7. On the front of No. 7, in Lindsay Street, there is a balcony projecting from the first floor level of the premises over the footpath which is supported by 2 pillars on its outer side, the pillars rise from the edge of the pavement. A row of railings are on the outer side of the balcony. The entrance to the corridor is beneath the balcony, from the covered way below it...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Commerce Ltd. Vs. Runja Behari Kar S/O Ishan Chandra Kar and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal196
ORDER1. Civil Revision No. 818 of 1941. The opposite parties jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 150 from the K. L. Bank Ltd. (formerly known as the Khulna Loan Co. Ltd.) on 3rd January 1920, on a promissory note with a promise to pay on demand to the said Bank the sum borrowed with interest at the rate of Re. 1-6-0 per cent, per annum. The opposite parties paid Rs. 415-11-0 as interest on the said loan. The last payment of interest was made on 11th March 1938. In the year 1940 the Bank instituted a suit against the opposite parties for recovery of Rs. 150 as principal sum of the loan together with RS. 99-13-0 as balance of interest due in the small Cause Suit No. 495 of 1940 of the second Court of the Miinsif at Khulna. The defence of the opposite parties in the suit was that they had already paid a sum of Rs. 415-11-0 and so the bank was not entitled to get any decree against them in view of the provisions of Section 30, Bengal Money-lenders' Act, 1940. On 5th April 1941, the Small Cause C...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Murarka and ors. Vs. Mangtulal Bagaria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal221
McNair, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent Mangtulal Bagaria for Rs. 64,020-12-0 on account of royalty due from May 1933 to April 1939 on a mining lease. The appellants (who for convenience are referred to as the Murarkas) obtained that lease in 1920 from Popat Velji. The term was for a period of 994 years at a minimum royalty of Rs. 9000 per year.2. Popat died in 1923, and Mangtulal one of his creditors on 21-7-1924, applied for an order for administration in insolvency of his estate under Section 108, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Shortly thereafter on 3-8-1924 Popat's widows, who claimed to be entitled to maintenance, brought Suit No. 5126 of 1924 on behalf of them-selves and all other creditors for administration of Popat's estate under the direction of the Court.3. The original defendant was Popat's father who was said to be in possession of the estate, and the plaintiffs prayed for an enquiry to ascertain the estate at the time of Popat...
Tag this Judgment!Kishoreganj Co-operative Town Bank Ltd. Vs. Rukmini Kanta Bhattacherjy ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal231
1. This appeal is by the decree holder. It arises in connexion with the execution of an award made by an arbitrator appointed under rules made by the Local Government under the provisions of the Cooperative Credit Societies Act. A certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor was sold. He filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. on the ground that the sale was a nullity. It was dismissed by the Munsif. On appeal the sale has been set aside by the Subordinate Judge.2. The sale was held in violation of the terms of Sections 33 and 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The practical question argued before me is the proper procedure which ought to be followed by the judgment, debtor if he desires to have it set aside, or, if it does not require to be set aside, to obtain a declaration that his interest has not been affected by it.3. To understand the arguments made the following facts must be stated. The execution petition was filed while the judgment-debtor's application was pen...
Tag this Judgment!Mritunjoy Mitra Vs. Satish Chandra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal193
ORDER1. The defendant executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff two mortgages in respect of the same property, on 17th July 1923 and 19th June 1925, for Rs. 5000 and Rs. 2000, respectively. Interest was payable at 15 per cent. per annum in respect of the first bond and at 18 per cent, per annum in respect of the second bond according to the stipulations in the bond. The mortgagee thereafter instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah in the year 1930 for recovery of Rs. 15,500 on the two mortgage bonds. The suit was decreed in full and a preliminary decree was passed on 24th February 1931, for a sum of RS. 19,803-2-0 including interest pendente lite amounting to Rs. 3058-12.0 and costs of the suit amounting to RS. 1244-6-0. The preliminary decree was made final on 30th March 1931. In execution of the final decree, the mortgaged properties were sold and were purchased by the mortgagee for Rs. 10,000 on 8th March 1932. Before the sale the mortgagor paid Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Noni Lal Chowdhury Vs. Lalit Mohan Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Cal97
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The petitioner before us was a defendant in a suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note which was brought against him by the predecessor in interest of the opposite party in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. A contested decree was obtained in that suit by the opposite party and it was transferred for execution to the Court of the first Munsif at Alipore, where certain immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and put up to sale and were purchased by the decree-holder. The petitioner has now brought a suit for re-opening the Small Cause Court decree under Section 36, Bengal Money-Lenders Act and the suit has been filed in the Court of the Munsif at Alipore and not in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah where the decree on the loan was recovered. The Munsif of Alipore has returned the plaint on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the proper forum of such suit would be the Court which originall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »