Kolkata Court May 1946 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.
Nanipada Saha and ors. Vs. Nilima Probha Nandi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal19
1. The appellants before us borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000 from the respondent on 2nd September 1936 on a mortgage executed on that date. The mortgage instrument recites that the mortgagors had debts payable to the executors of late Rai Budh Singh Dhuduria Bahadur on the basis of a karbarnama mortgage executed by them and that they had other small debts. The sole intention of the mortgagors, therefore, was to repay their debts to the executors of the late Rai Budh Singh Dhuduria Bahadur and to others. This mortgage provided for 9 per cent, compound interest with six monthly rests. The money not having been paid the mortgagee, namely, the respondent brought a suit. She obtained a preliminary decree on 20th September 1939 and the final decree on 2lst January 1940. While the decree was under execution the appellants filed an application under Section 36(6) Clause a(i), Bengal Money Lenders' Act, for relief. The learned Subordinate Judge had held that the Bengal Money-Lenders Act was applica...
Moyna Dasi Vs. Hiralal Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal31
ORDER1. One Behary Lal Sardar complained on 30-5-1945, against Hiralal Mandal, Haralal Mandal and Bam Lai Mandal and others before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Khulna alleging that the accused had been guilty of rioting and had assaulted him and his mother. The Magistrate issued a warrant against Hiralal, Haralal and Bam Lai under S3. 323 and 147, Penal Code. After two dates a compromise petition was filed on 1-8-1945, and the Magistrate recorded an order 'compromise petition is filed by both parties. Accused acquitted under Section 345, Criminal P.C.' On 8th August the mother Moyna Dasi appeared before the same Magistrate and filed a complaint mentioning the facts. The Magistrate directed that the connected papers be put up and finally on 20th September (the opposite party in some way having been heard on 17th September) the Magistrate noted that in the earlier case the compromise was effected between Behary Lal Sardar and the 3 accused,, Moyna Dassi being a witness, and that on g...
Gopal Laskar Vs. Harihar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Cal37
Lodge, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order for restitution. The material facts are as follows. The respondents had obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the present appellant and in execution of that decree had had the property with which we are concerned put up to sale and had purchased the same in auction. After the sale was confirmed the respondents obtained delivery of possession. Thereafter the present appellant applied to have the sale set aside and on 27-3-1939 the sale was set aside by the original Court. The decree-holders auction-purchasers that is to say, the present respondents, appealed against the order setting aside the sale but that appeal was dismissed on 4-9-1939. In the month of September, 1939, the present appellant recovered possession of the property which had been sold. On 20-7-1942, the application out of which the present appeal arises was filed by the present appellant in which he claimed by way of restitution, mesne profits for the period in which...
Province of Bengal Vs. Joy Narayan Fatehpuria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal25
Akram, J.1. This is an appeal in a land acquisition case from the decision of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal; it relates to valuation regarding the acquired premises Nos. 24 Cockier Lane and 45 Lake Road. Admittedly claimants 1 to 5 are joint owners of the said property having therein the following shares:2. Claimant 1, Joynarain Patehpuria 1/5 ' 2, Gourisankar ' 1/5 (now dead) ' 3, Nagarmal ' 3/10 ' 4, Sitaram ' 1/10 ' 5, Mohan Lall Sew Lall (firm) 1/53. Claimants 1, 2 and 3 are brothers, claimant 4 is the son of claimant 2 and claimant 5 is an outsider purchaser. We are not concerned here with the claimant 6 who asserted that he was a lessee of the trees upon the land. The land is an irregular piece of land running east to west, measuring 4 Bighas 8 Cottas and abutting to the west on a narrow lane called Banamali Bidyasagar Lane and to the south on the open lands of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 40,000 for the lands of the sa...
Hazi Jamal Noor Mohammad a Firm Vs. Governor General in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal26
ORDERB.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This rule is directed against the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah, dated 14-8-1945, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff petitioner for damages for loss of goods in transit, against the Bengal Nagpur Railway. On the merits of the case, the learned Judge found in favour of the plaintiff but he dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no notice served upon the Governor-General of India in Council as representing the Bengal Nagpur Railway under Section 80, Civil P.C.2. The facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows:3. The goods were consigned by the plaintiffs' agent on 10-10-1943, at Mandirhasand Station, and they were to be delivered to the plaintiff at Shalimar. A part of the consignment did not arrive at the destination at all, and the plaintiff gave notice of his claim for compensation under Section 77, Indian Railways Act, on 18-10-1943. On 1-10-1944, Bengal Nagpur Railway administration was taken over by the...
Jitendra Nath Basu Vs. Tarak Chandra Roy Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal28
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of one among three persons who had obtained a stay of a mortgage execution case proceeding against them in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Faridpur, by the issue of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. Subsequently, on an application made by the decree-holders, the learned Judge vacated the stay order in the view that the Court which had issued the notice had no jurisdiction to deal with any application relating to the decretal debt, inasmuch as that debt amounted to Rs. 48,000. The petitioner contends that the view taken by the learned Judge is not correct and further that, whether the Board had or had not jurisdiction to entertain the application, the learned Judge had himself none to say that it had not and that his own order vacating the stay order is without jurisdiction. The petition to this Court does not disclose two of the most material facts. On a reference to the record, it appears that, a...
Rajbari Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rani Harshamukhi Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal154
1. Kumar Arun Chandra Sinha was the proprietor of 8 annas share of the Paikpara Raj Estate known as the Bhulua Estate. His properties consisted of revenue paying estates in the districts of Noakhali, Bakergunge, Faridpur and other districts. He mortgaged all his properties in favour of Raja Janaki Nath Roy and his co-sharers. Raja Janakinath Roy and his co sharers instituted a suit on the said mortgage in the Original Side of this Court in the year 1934 and recovered a preliminary decree for Rs. 25,00,000 and odd. By the decree Mr. Meyer was appointed a receiver with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 750 month by month to Kumar Arun Chandra Sinha and to apply the balance in deduction of the mortgage dues. In pursuance of this decree, Mr. Meyer as Receiver took possession of the Bhulua Estate and at the material point of time, namely September 1938, Rs. 19,00,000 and odd was due to the mortgagees. Kumar Arun Chandra Sinha had other debts. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000 on a promissory no...
Suresh Chandra and ors. Vs. Benoy Kumar Acharjya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal267
Mitter, J.1. Three brothers, Binayakdas, Bidhubhusan and Sreenath borrowed on 22nd March 1913, Rs. 10,000 on a simple money bond from Kalichandra Bhattacharjee. The loan carried 7 1/2 per cent, interest. The appellants are the legal representatives of Kali Chandra and the respondents are the sons and heirs of Sreenath, who had died in 1922. After Sreenath's death and just when the debt was about to be barred by time Bidhubhusan and the sons of Binayakdas, who had also died in the meantime, executed a renewed bond on 18th March 1925, in favour of Kali Chandra. The said bond was not produced by the appellants in the lower Court. They have produced the same before us with an application to receive it as additional evidence. We have taken in the document by consent and have marked it as Ex. H.C. (1). The said bond recites the loan of 1913 and part payments made from time to time. After adjustment a sum of Rs. 20,000 was found to be due on the loan of 1913 and the executants promised to pay...
Wajad Ali Shah Vs. Sm. Dadannessa Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Cal282
Lodge, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the defendant had been dismissed from the post of Imam to a certain mosque and for recovery of possession of certain lands which the defendant had enjoyed in virtue of his holding the post of Imam. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' claim to be the matwallis of the mosque in question, asserting his own right to the office of mutwalli, denying the assertion that he had been validly removed from the post of Imam, denying the assertion that some of the lands claimed in the suit belonged to this mosque and denying the assertion that he held any of the lands as a chakran tenant by virtue of his holding the office of Imam. The defendant also claimed compensation for the houses erected by him on the lands in suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, but the defendant was awarded Rs. 800 as compensation. An appeal by the defendant and a cross appeal by the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›