Kolkata Court December 1947 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 Mohan Sarkar Vs. Mahipal Nayek and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal203
R.C. Mitter, J.1. In execution of a mortgage-decree the properties mortgaged by the appellant were sold on 13th February 1939. Some of them were purchased by the decree-holder and the rest by strangera. The price fetched at that sale, however, did not cover the decretal amount with the result that the mortgagee obtained on 24th April 1940 a personal decree for Rs. 7198 under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. In execution of this decree eighteen items of the mortgagor's other properties were ultimately put up to sale on 17th January 1941 by the Subordinate Judge who had passed the personal decree in the mortgage suit. One lot was not sold, five were purchased by the decree-holder respondent and the remaining lots were purchased by the other respondents in the appeal who are strangers. The sale was confirmed on 30th January 1942. The legality of the sale of the seventeen lots sold on 17th January 1941 in execution of the said personal decree is the question to be decided in this appeal. The a...
Sachindra Mohan Sen Roy Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal187
Roxburgh, J.1. This is an appeal by Sachindra Mohan Sen Roy who has been convicted by the first Special Tribunal at Alipore on a charge under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, under which he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, also on two charges under Section 468 of the Code under which he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, and nine charges under Section 420 of the Code under which he was also sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment-all the sentences to run concurrently. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100000/-and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 217500/-under Section 10 of ordinance No. XXIX of 1943 as amended subsequently, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.2. There were three accused before the Tribunal, one D. Saha alias Nani Sen Gupta, Jatindra Chandra Sen and the present appellant. D. Saha was acquitted by the Tribunal. Jatindra Chandra Sen pleaded guilty and his ca...
Sm. Bhadu Dasi W/O Golok Behari Dutt Vs. Gokul Chandra Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal240
R.C. Mitter, J.1. One Radhanath Ghose was the owner of two items of property one a niskar and the other an occupancy holding. On 30th of Baisakh, 1334, (13-5-1927) he borrowed a sum of Rs. 350 from two persons Rohini Gope and Gostha Gope, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant before us, Bhadu Dasi, and hypothecated by way of usufructuary mortgage the said two items of property. By the terms of the mortgage instrument, the mortgagees in possession were to take the usufruct of the mortgaged properties in satisfaction of the interest only and the mortgagor was given the right of redeeming the property by payment of the principal lent not earlier than Chaitra, 1349. After the mortgage Ful Kumari Dasi purchased the occupancy holding only from the mortgagor. She died some time before June, 1942, leaving behind her husband Gokul Chandra Daw and her mother. In June 1942 Gokul Chandra Daw filed an application under Section 26G (5), Bengal Tenancy Act for getting back the possession of th...
Chandanmull Jhaleria and ors. Vs. Clive Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal257
Harries, C.J.1. These are ten connected appeals from judgments and orders of Das J., staying ten suits which had given rise to ten applications for stay.2. The plaintiffs in the suits, who wore the respondents to the applications before the learned single Judge, had entered into forward contracts with the respective defendants in the suits, who were applicants before Das J., for sale of various quantities of jute upon the terms and conditions contained in the respective contracts, which were in the forms approved by the Indian Jute Mills Association. The time for delivery in most of the contracts was August to September, 1946, and in some it was during a period beyond September, 1946. All the contracts contained an arbitration clause. In Suits Nos. 42 and 43 of 1947 which gave rise to appeals Nos. 23 and 34 of 1947 the arbitration clause was in these terms:Any dispute whatsoever arising out of or in any way relating to this contract or to its construction or fulfilment, or payment, bet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›