Kolkata Court July 1944 Judgments
Lakshman Chandra Roy Choudhury and anr. Vs. Birendra Kumar Singha and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal24
Sharpe, J.1. The question raised in this appeal, which is by the judgment-debtor, depends upon the construction of the proviso to Section 168A, Sub-section (1) (a), Bengal Tenancy Act. The material facts which are admitted, are as follows: In 1932 the respondent obtained a decree against the appellant for arrears of rent due in respect of a patni taluk. The decretal amount was ES. 4395 odd plus costs amounting to Rs. 495. Before 1940 that decree was executed four times and a total sum pf Rs. 880 was realised. In 1940 the decree was put into execution again. In the course of this execution there was an adjustment between the parties on 5th June 1940. By the adjustment the decree-holder agreed to receive Rs. 3639-8 in full satisfaction of the decree. The sum of Rs. 839-8 was paid by the appellant on that date and the balance, Rs. 2800, was made payable in instalments. One of the terms of the adjustment was that if there was any default in payment of an instalment or if the patni taluk wa...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Bibi Vs. Mrinalini Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal449
1. In 1939 the respondent brought a suit to recover a sum of money from Khalil Ostagar and his son. She applied for attachment before judgment of the property in suit and the property was attached in September 1939. Khalil died in February 1940 and his widow, the present appellant, was substituted as one of his legal representatives. Thereafter, she preferred a claim under Order 38, Rule 8, Civil P.C., to the property, that had been attached but that claim was summarily rejected on 15th July 1910. Subsequently a decree was passed in July 1940 against her as the legal representative of Khalil and against the other defendant. In January 1942 the respondent applied for execution of the decree. She prayed for the sale of the said property which had been attached before judgment.2. As the decree could be executed only against the assets of Khalil in her possession the appellant objected to the sale of the said property on the ground that it was not Khalil's property but was hers. Both the C...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council as Owner of E.i. Ry. Vs. Shivaram Roy and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal267
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by defendant 1. The claim is for the value of a consignment booked at Ohapra to the plaintiff at Bankura. It has been found as a fact by the learned Judge that it was transferred to the petitioner's railway at Mokamaghat Station on 13th August 1942. The defence is that it was placed in shed No. 3 where it was looted by a mob in course of the disturbances which broke out in the province of Bihar in that month. In opposing the rule Mr. Mukherjee naturally raised the point that the question is determined by the findings of fact reached by the learned Munsif. The learned Munsif has found that there was a riot at the Station on that day. Indeed any other finding would have been perverse. He, however, held that the petitioner has failed to prove that this particular consignment was looted. He says that he is not prepared to believe the petitioner's witnesses fully and thinks that they had exaggerated matters. He gives no details and does not s...
Tag this Judgment!Dacca Co-operative Town Bank Ltd. Vs. Sm. Jnanada Sundari Debya and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal424
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule has been obtained by the decree-holder. An award was made in his favour under the procedure laid down in the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. He applied for execution to the Small Cause Court. The Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application and returned the petition for presentation in the proper Court. The petitioner then applied to the Munsif. He took the opposite view holding that only the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction. He accordingly returned the petition for presentation to the proper Court. The petitioner has now gone back to the Small Cause Court with the same result. It is quite obvious that this game of battledore and shuttlecock cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely and the petitioner is entitled to have one of the orders set aside. The claim which is the subject-matter of the award was one cognizable by a Small Cause Court and, apart from the special procedure laid down in the Rules framed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Krishna Saha and Representatives, Kali Krishna Saha and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal32
Henderson, J.1. These appeals are by the decree-holders. As the main point argued is common to them both, they were heard together. In S. M. A. No. 169 the facts are these: The appellant obtained a decree for rent for the years 1337-1340 B.S. Nothing was realized by execution proceedings. Similarly, no rent was paid for the years 1341 to 1343. The tenant then went to a Debt Settlement Board both for the arrears of rent and for the decretal amount and an award was made. The present suit was to recover the rent due for the years 1344-1346. The appellant included in the suit the amount payable under the award. In S. M. A. No. 218, the decree-holder instituted the suit for recovery of the rent due for the years 1344-1346. The rent due for an early period was covered by an award made by a Debt Settlement Board. Similarly, the appellant included this sum in the present suit. In both eases the judgment-debtors raised the objection that, in view of the tacking of the amount due on the award, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhamoyee Singha W/O Upendra Nath Singha and ors. Vs. Jessore Loan Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Cal322
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to these two appeals which arise out of two analogous suits, and involve the same points for decision may be shortly stated as follows: One Harendra Krishna Ghose Choudhury who owned, amongst others, a three anna 4 ganda share in Touzis Nos. 962 to 966 of the Khulna Collectorate died in the year 1893 leaving behind him as his sole heir, a childless widow, named Brojobhamini. Shortly after the death of Harendra, Brojobhamini presented an application for letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband in the Court of the District Judge at Jessore and the application was registered as letters of administration Case No. 89 of 1893. A caveat was entered in these proceedings by two of the reversioners, namely, Debnarayan and Joyram and they put in a separate application for obtaining letters of administration on their own behalf to the estate of the deceased. Eventually, the parties came to a settlement and a petition of compromise w...
Tag this Judgment!indo Burmah Trader's Bank, Ltd. Vs. Barada Charan Dhar, on Death, Sm. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal370
1. The appellant, hereafter called the Bank, recovered a decree for Rs. 2003-13-3 against Barada Charan Dhar on 11th September 1936 which is still outstanding. On 29th March 1939 the Bank presented art application to the learned District Judge, Chittagong, for adjudicating him an insolvent. Two acts of insolvency were alleged: (1) that, he had executed a deed of gift in favour of his wife with the intent of defeating and delaying his creditors, and (2) that he had suspended payment of his debts and had given notice thereof to his creditors. The date of the deed of gift was given as 21st February 1939. The learned District Judge refused to adjudicate him insolvent. He held that the evidence led by the petitioning creditor was not sufficient to establish the second act of insolvency alleged in the petition. Before him the parties admitted that Barada had executed the deed of gift in favour of his wife on 30th October 1938 and that deed had been registered on 2lst February 1939.On the adm...
Tag this Judgment!Bazler Rahman Khandakar Vs. AmiraddIn and on His Death, His Sons Apsar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Cal401
Biswas, J.1. This is a Rule against a revisional Order of the District Judge of Tippera under Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, and arises out of an application made by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act for settlement of his debts. The petitioner was ordinarily resident at a place called Chauddagram within the Comilla sub-division, but instead of applying to the Ordinary Debt Settlement Board established for that area, he made the application before the Special Board at Laksam which had jurisdiction over the whole of the sub-division. The Special Board thereupon submitted the application to the Collector (S. D. O., Comilla) under Rule 22, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Rules, 1936, and that officer directed a transfer of the case to the Ordinary Board at Batisha, though the petitioner did not reside in this area.2. The petitioner's case was that on 17th Falgun 1331 B.S. (1st March 1925) his father on his own behalf and as guardian of the petitioner who was then a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›