Kolkata Court May 1945 Judgments
Satyanarayan Banerji and anr. Vs. Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal387
Biswas, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings in execution of a mortgage decree, and is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol, dated 12th June 1942, in Miscellaneous case NO. 106 of 1941, dismissing the appellants' objections to the sale held in execution of that decree. The mortgagors were two persons, S, H. Seddon and Rasaraj Biswas, who carried on business in co-partnership under the name and style of S. H. Seddon & Co., but they are not the appellants before us. The appellants are two joint Receivers of the said partnership business the assets of which included the mortgaged properties, having been appointed as such in a suit on the Original Side of this Court for dissolution of the partnership. The objections raised to the sale were partly under Order 21, Rule 90, and partly under Section 47, Civil P. C. In-so far as they fell under the first category, the learned Judge held that they were time-barred, and also that the appellants had failed to...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Deboo (Daboo) Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal423
Henderson, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 13 of Ordinance 35 of 1943. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the appellant sold a case of whisky to P.W. 1 for Rs. 560. The proprietor of the business is the appellant's father who was also sent up but was acquitted. There are disputed questions of fact. Apparently it was admitted that P.W. 1 paid Rs. 560 to the appellant. The defence however say that this was arranged by the appellant's father as the price of the whisky and certain other things. Of course, if that version is true, there is an end of the ease. Before the appellant could be convicted, it would have to be shown that either he is a dealer within the definition of Section 3 of the Ordinance or that his act amounted to an abetment of an offence by his father. As his father has been acquitted, it would be very difficult to establish facts making the appellant liable as an abettor. I am told that the appellant is a student reading in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Jogendra Chandra Ghosh Bahadur Vs. Bhawani Charan Law and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal425
Mitter, J.1. By an indenture dated 13th September 1907, Maharaj Kumar Kristo Das Law and others granted a permanent tenure comprising three Sunderbans lots, Madhabpore, Durgapore and Moipit to Rai Jogendra Chandra Ghose Bahadur and his brothers. The lessees agreed to pay Government revenue and cesses and the sum of Rs. 5000 as rent to the lessors anually, in the following manner, namely, Rs. 1900 for Madhabpore, Rs. 1200 for Durgapore and Rs. 1900 for Moipit, in two kists--April and October. Rent was made payable at the lessors' office at No. 8, New China Bazar Street, Calcutta. There were a number of covenants and conditions which the lessees agreed to observe. As security for due performance of the covenants and conditions the lessees deposited with the lessors Port Trust Debentures of the face value of Rs. 84,000 duly endorsed in favour of the latter. The lessees had the option of getting back those debentures wholly or in part by giving with the consent of the lessors security in z...
Tag this Judgment!Sophy Auerbach Vs. Shivaprosad Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal484
Lodge, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration that the marriage of the plaintiff to the defendant is null and void, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from claiming the plaintiff as his wife. The material facts are no longer disputed. The plaintiff Sophie Auerbach was a British subject, a Jewess by the religion, domiciled in England. The defendant is a Hindu domiciled in British India. Some time before 14th April 1931, the defendant married a Hindu wife in India according to Hindu rites. That wife is still alive and is still the wife of the defendant according to Hindu law which is the personal law of the defendant.2. On 14th April 1931 the plaintiff went through a form and ceremony of marriage with the defendant in accordance with the French laws at the Mairie du Luxembourg, VIth Arron dissement in Paris, France. Thereafter the defendant and the plaintiff lived together as man and wife, and three sons were born of the union, The plaintiff asserts that at the time of her ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Roy Choudhury Vs. Sushil Chandra Chakravarty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal370
Biswas, J.1. The question in this appeal, broadly stated, is whether a borrower is entitled to relief under Section 36(1), Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, in respect of a loan which was satisfied before the Act came into force. The facts were these. On 16th February 1924, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4200 from the respondent on mortgage of two holdings within the Municipality of Dacca, stipulating to pay interest at the rate of Re. 1-4-0 per cent. per annum. In 1926 the appellant purchased the properties from the mortgagor subject to the mortgage, and thereafter wanted to redeem the same. The mortgagee, however, would not accept payment amicably, and this led the appellant to have recourse to the provisions of Section 83, T. P. Act. This section provides that at any time after the principal money payable in respect of a mortgage has become due and before a suit for redemption is barred, the mortgagor or any other person entitled to institute such s...
Tag this Judgment!HafizuddIn Mandal and ors. Vs. Mahim Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal399
Henderson, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor and it raises the question whether a Debt Settlement Board has jurisdiction to decide that a debt is barred by limitation. The respondent is not represented here and I am much obliged to Mr. Lahiri for the assistance he has given me as amicus curie. There is no dispute as to the facts. The debt in question is a sum of Rs. 160 payable on a decree obtained by the respondent. The board determined it at Rs. 160 and called on the respondent to produce a certified copy of the decree. Instead of doing that he produced what is described as a searching slip. The board examined it and then announced that the debt was barred by limitation. So nothing was due on it. The respondent filed the present execution ease. The appellant objected that execution could not proceed in view of the decision of the board. The Munsif upheld this objection but his decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge in the lower appellate Court. The decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul HossaIn Vs. Salimar Paint, Colour and Varnish Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Cal36
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, hereafter called the company, purchased a number of plots of sali (arable) land from the, tenants in actual occupation and reduced them into its khas possession. Thereafter it took mukurari mourasi settlements of those lands from the zemindars, the Kundu Chowdhuries of Mahiari and the Khans of Mankundu, by several pottas. The evident object of the company in acquiring those plots was to set up a factory for the manufacture of paint, colour and varnish. In fact on a portion a factory has been erected. Most of the remaining area which was not immediately required for the factory was utilised by allowing portions to be enjoyed by others in consideration of payment of money. The subject-matter of the suit is seven plots of land described in Schedule A and thirteen plots of land described in Schedule B of the plaint. The company prays for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.2. The case made in the plaint is that the defendant was given permission to enjo...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Chandra Ghose and ors. Vs. Shyamapada Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Cal381
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Murshidabad dated 17th May 1944, made under Section 40 A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The petitioners before us borrowed money from the opposite parties on hypothecation of certain properties and the latter obtained a mortgage decree against the petitioners on the basis of the mortgage bond, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad, some time in 1937. In execution of the decree the mortgaged properties were sold and they were purchased by the decree-holder in January 1938. Some time in 1941, the petitioners filed an application before the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad under Section 36, Bengal Money Lenders Act of 1940, praying for the re-opening of the mortgage decree 'and other consequential reliefs. The decree-holder resisted the application and contended inter alia that there being no suit or proceeding in connexion with the mortgage debt pending on or after 1st January 1939, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›