Privy Council Court March 1929 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.
(Raja) Satya, Niranjan Chakravarty and Others Vs. Surajubala Debi and ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-21-1929
This is an appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 3 against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum allowing the plaintiff's claim for rent for four years from the Ashar kist of 1327 to the Ashar kist of 1330 B. S. The plaintiff is a member of the same family as defendants 1, 2 and 3 she being the widow of a son of one of the predeceased brothers of the said defendants. She inherited a certain share of the property to which her husband was entitled as a descendant of Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravarty. It is needless to say that these parties are people of considerable property and respectability. It seems that there was a very unfortunate dissension between the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3. This was apparently settled by the plaintiff executing a lease by way of Ijara of her share of the property by a deed dated 8th January 1916. It is unnecessary just now to refer to any of the terms of the lease; but it may be mentioned that, under that lease, a sum of Rs. 20,000 per ye...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. E. Narasimha Mudaliar, Proprietor ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Murray Coutts Trotter, C J [1] I have had the advantage in this case of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Beasley, J. It sums up the results arrived at after a long discussion between him, Odgers and myself and it may be taken to be the judgment of the Court. I only add a few words because I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so as for eight years 1 was in charge of the insolvency Jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court. The procedure which was prohibited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jnanendra Bala Debi v. The Official Assignee of Calcutta was that persons alleged to be indebted to the Bankrupt estate--known in our Court for some reason, I never quite understood, as "garnishees"--should be examined, which of course in effect means cross-examined, by the Official Assignee under the powers of Section 36 and that statements made by them not amounting to a definite admission of indebtedness to the estate should be used under Section 7 to ask the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›