Kolkata Court January 1945 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.
Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhury and on His Death His Heirs and Legal Repre ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal154
1. One Ashutosh Roy Choudhury, the predecessor of the respondents in the present appeal, obtained an ex parte money decree against the predecessor of the appellant in this appeal for a sum of Rs. 2288 together with costs. The decree was pronounced on 16th May 1927, and it was signed on 2nd June 1927. Subsequently, the decree-holder applied for execution in two consecutive proceedings which were admittedly within time and which were, for some reason with which we are not concerned, dismissed. Eventually, in 1933, another Execution case No. 109 of 1933, was instituted by the decree-holder. In that case a compromise was entered into between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor on 20th July 1934, by which the decretal dues were adjusted at a sum of rupees 3295-1-3 including interest and costs. The main terms of the compromise were that a sum of Rs. 1500 was to be paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder in nine annual instalments, and it was stipulated that the decree would be...
RahimuddIn Ahmed Vs. Umesh Chandra Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal362
Blank, J.1. This rule arises from the following facts: The petitioner was elected as the President of the Akcha Union Board in the district of Dinajpur on 12th January 1913, in a meeting of the members of the Union Board, presided over by the Circle Officer. A petition against the election was filed before the District Magistrate who ordered on 10th April 1943 that a fresh election should be held, on the finding that the election proceedings should not be confirmed. It is stated in the plaint that five votes were cast for opposite party 1 and four for the petitioner but that the Circle Officer rejected two of the five votes, so that the petitioner was elected by four votes to three. The learned Commissioner heard an application in revision as provided by Section 17B, Village Self-Government Act, and agreed with the finding of the learned District Magistrate that the two votes had been wrongly rejected but found himself unable to uphold the order for a fresh election and accordingly ord...
Parmotha Nath Daw Vs. Habu Mia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal335
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: On 18th May 1936, the appellant obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 3341-6-0 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. Some time in August 1941, that is to say, more than five years after the decree was pronounced, the appellant filed an application for execution, in which he averred that he had received from the judgment-debtor three payments during the course of the years 1938 and 1939. It should be noted here that no document in the handwriting of, or, signed by the person making the payment was put in, and that the provisions of Section 20, Limitation Act, could not, therefore, be said to apply. A notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C., was served upon the judgment-debtor and the execution case was put down for hearing on 18th September 1941. On 9th September 1941, the decree-holder filed a petition in which he stated that he had received a further sum of Rs. 50 from the judgment-debtor in part s...
PulIn Behari Pal and anr. Vs. Iswar Chandra Pal Firm and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal303
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The respondent before us which is a firm carrying on business under the name and style of late Iswar Chandra Pal obtained a money decree in the original side of this Court against another firm known as late Ram Krishna Pal and late Kali Krishna Pal for a sum of Rs. 18,456 annas odd on 6th March 1931. In the beginning of 1943, the decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Fourth Subordinate Judge at Dacca, and the application for execution was filed by the decree-holder in that Court on 12th February 1943. In this petition, the decree-holder prayed for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of certain moveable properties belonging to the present appellants who were made parties to the execution proceeding as judgment debtors Nos. 2 to 6 on the allegation that they were partners of the firm against which the decree was obtained.2. The appellants resisted the ...
Surendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Kumar Khali Banking Corporation Ltd. (Kusthia ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal333
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendant borrower and it is directed against a new decree in a mortgage suit made by the Subordinate Judge, Nadia, under the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows: The appellant before us borrowed money from the respondent bank on three different promissory notes executed on 23rd February 1921, 22nd August 1921 and 22nd September 1922 respectively. The first promissory note was for Rs. 250 and the stipulated interest was 15 per cent. per annum. The other two were for advances of Rs. 2000 and Rs. 750 respectively, and both carried interest at 12 per cent. per annum. All the three promissory notes were renewed later on after deducting certain payments made by the borrower. The first promissory note was renewed on 9th Falgoon 1330 B. Section for a sum of Rs. 225 after payment of Rs. 105. The date of the renewal of the second handnote was 3rd Bhadr...
Biswanath Khemka Vs. Sew Chand Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal488
ORDER1. These rules are for the transfer of two cases at present being tried by Mr. Md. Safi Khan, Additional Presidency Magistrate. The petitioner is one of seven accused who are being tried in both the cases. A previous application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate under 3.528, Criminal P. C, has been rejected by him. Mr. Probodh Chandra Chatterjee appears on behalf of Sew Chand Roy and Bhagwandas Bajoria, two of the other accused persons and states that he sup. ports the petitioner. No one appears for the remaining accused.2. Originally on 26th February 1944 a challan was submitted by the police against the seven accused for offences of hoarding on three counts and profiteering on three counts, offences under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules. The cases were eventually transferred on 29th April 1944 to Mr. Md. Safi Khan for disposal and on 11th May the trial began. According to the petitioner the Public Prosecutor on 11th May stated that he would proceed only on the charge of prof...
Keshab Chandra Pal Vs. Governor-general of India in Council and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal294
Blank, J.1. This Rule arises from the following facts. It is said that on 7th April 1942, the petitioner, along with other inhabitants of his village in P. S. Mograhat, District 24-Parganas, was compelled to remove himself from his dwelling house on 48 hours' notice, the land being requisitioned under the Defence of India Act. The petitioner contends that he left behind a number of bricks and some bamboos growing in a clump covering an area of about 9 cottas. Further, since the occupation of his land by the military authorities, the dwelling house had been demolished and his bricks and bamboos removed and used by the military authorities. The petitioner filed a claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector at Alipur who awarded Rs. 628 in respect of the dwelling house and a periodical payment in respect of the temporarily occupied lands, but did not make any award on account of the bricks and bamboos. The petitioner moved the Land Acquisition Collector for re-considerati...
(Minor) Khoka Bairagi and ors. Vs. Bhabani Dasi W/O Nagendra Nath Mand ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal380
ORDERHenderson, J.1. This rule is directed against an order allowing pre-emption on an application made by opposite party NO. 1 which was rejected by the Munsif on the ground of limitation. The original transferee died before the application was made. Petitioner 3 is one of her heirs but she was not made a party until 17th June 1943 by which time the period of limitation had expired. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this was immaterial as the application itself was filed within the time allowed. The reason he gave was that the only object of serving a notice on the transferee is to enable him to show what sums had been expended by him subsequent to his purchase. If that argument were well-founded it might be possible to' support the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is, however, fallacious. It is certainly open to the transferee to contest the application on the allegation, for example, that the applicant is not a cosharer. In holding that the provisions of Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›