Kolkata Court June 1947 Judgments
Kumarkhali Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Pal Chaudhury a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal65
Mitter, J.1. In October 1921, defendant 1 and the ancestor of the other defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 3000 from the appellant, namely, the Kumarkhali Banking Corporation Ltd., on a hand-note at an interest of 12 per cent, per annum. Between 1921 and September 1927 they paid Rs. 1000 as interest. On 28th October 1927, accounts were taken of the loan advanced on this hand-note of October 1921. It was found that Rs. 3000 was due on account of principal and Rs. 1160 on account of interest. On that date the borrower paid Rs. 160 to the lender in cash and executed a promissory note for the balance of Rs. 4000. That amount is admittedly made up of Rs. 3000 which was the principal advanced on the bandnote of October 1921 and Rs. 1000 being the arrears of interest due on that date. The hand-note is in the usual terms, namely.that on demand the promisors promise to pay the said sum of Rs. 4000 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum, for money advanced to them by way of loan.No reference was ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra N. Mitra and anr. Vs. Nripendra B. Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal208
ORDERClough, J.1. On 29-6-1928, that is more than 19 years ago, the mortgaged properties of one Nripendra Bhusan Roy were sold by Registrar of this Court pursuant to a mortgage decree. Amongst other lots, nine items comprising a number of properties which it is not necessary to set out but which are mentioned in the Registrar's certificate dated 21-1-1946, annexure 'A' to the petition were knocked down to Sm. Sushila Sundari Dassi, her bids amounted to Rs. 1,10,050 and 25% of this amount that is to say Rs. 27,512-8-0, was deposited by her with the Registrar on account of her purchases. She, however, failed to pay the balance of the purchase price and the Registrar's certificate already referred to shows that after deducting his commission a balance amounting to Rs. 24,761-4-0 is still in his hands. This application is made by the sons of Sm. Sushila Sundari Dassi, (she herself having died in June 1938), for an order that the Registrar do pay the amount of the deposit to the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Asmatali Sharip Vs. Mujaharali Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal48
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This Rule is directed against an appellate judgment of K.M. Islam Esq., and Sub-Judge, Barisal dated 24th March 1946 by which he affirmed an order of dismissal made by the Munsif 5th Court of that place, of an application, presented by the petitioner Under Section 26(f), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The facts material for our present purposes lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows:3. There are two occupancy holdings recorded in Khatians 12 and 38 of a certain mouza, which belonged jointly to the petitioner and opposite parties 4-7. On 23rd January 1942, the opposite parties 4 and 5 transferred their interest in both the holdings by way of out and out sale to opposite parties 1-3, the consideration money being stated to be Rs. 100 in one of the kobalas and Rs. 200 in the other. It is admitted that no notice Under Section 26(c)(4), Bengal Tenancy Act was served upon the petitioner. On 16th December 1943, the petitioner presented an application for purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanilal Roy and ors. Vs. Raja Gopal Lal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal154
1. The defendant, Raja Gopal Lal Roy (hereafter called the borrower) borrowed from Nandalal Roy and Pulin Krishna Roy (they or the legal representatives are hereafter called the lenders) certain sums of money on three promissory notes dated (a) 25-9-1927, (b) 24-1-1928 and (c) 12-2-1928. On 4-10-1930 he executed three promissory notes: (d) one for Rs. 30,760 in favour of Nandalal and Pulin Krishna Roy: (e) another for Rs. 5500 in favour of Nandalal Roy and (f) the third also for Rs. 5500 in favour of Pulin Krishna Roy. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum was payable on all these three promissory notes. It is admitted by the lenders that no cash payment was made in respect of the promissory note (d). The principal, Rs. 30,760 mentioned in that promissory note represented the principal and interest due up to 3-8-1930 on the three earlier promissory notes (a), (b) and (c), but the other two promissory notes (e) and (f) represented cash transactions. The borrower executed two ot...
Tag this Judgment!Ardhendu Sekhar Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Kachem Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal75
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. These are two petitions for revision of orders of a lower appellate Court rejecting appeals on the ground that no appeals were maintainable.2. There had been proceedings before a learned Munsif for setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud and irregularity in the conduct and publication of the sale.3. The applications were made by the judgment-debtors, and the auction-purchaser and certain lessees of the auction-purchaser were the opposite parties. The learned Munsif held that the processes had been fraudulently suppressed and there had been no proclamation of sale. He accordingly held that the failure of the judgment-debtors to apply within limitation was due to this fraud and as the judgment-debtors came within less than a month of knowledge of the sale the learned Munsif held that the applications were within limitation. He accordingly set aside the sale.4. Both the auction-purchaser and the lessees appealed to the Court of the District Judge and there a point...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Biswas Vs. Monorama Devi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Cal77
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Subordinate Judge to the effect that no appeal lay to his Court.2. An application for pre-emption under Section 26F, Men. Ten. Act was dismissed for default. An application was then made for setting aside the dismissal and restoration of the application. That application was dismissed on contest and the unsuccessful applicant appealed to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge held that no appeal lay and dismissed the appeal.3. It has been argued in the first place that this was an order passed under Section 26F and was therefore appealable by reason of Sub-section (10) of that section. But, in my view, this is not an order under Section 26F. I have held that an order of dismissal for default would be an order under that section, but this was an order passed in an entirely different proceeding. The application under Section 26F had been dismissed for default and the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›