Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1941Cal257
R.C. Mitter, J.1. Defendant 1, Mohini Mohan Majumdar, was the plaintiff's law agent for looking after his cases at Kasba. He was appointed as agent by an order of the plaintiff's father dated 15th December 1909. He actually joined his office on 15th January 1910. On 12th March 1911, the plaintiff's father gave him an ammokternama for the purpose of enabling him to discharge the duties of his office. On 28th May 1911, he executed his service kabuliat in favour of the plaintiff's father and had it registered. The service kabuliat is printed at p. 13 of Book c. It is unnecessary to recite here all the terms of the service kabuliat. It is only necessary for this appeal to notice the following conditions of service: (a) he was to look after suits and executions and to withdraw the moneys deposited in Court on account of the decrees passed in favour of his employer; (b) not to spend a single cowrie out of the sums that he withdrew from Court on account of these decrees; (c) he was to send ev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad753
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal is from the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur confirming the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur dismissing the petition filed by five creditors of an insolvent Thomas Reddi in I. p. No. 42 of 1923 on the file of the District Court of Guntur for the grant of certain reliefs against respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. Respondent 1 is another creditor of the insolvent and respondent 2, P.V.S. Rao, is the special receiver, Guntur. Several questions of law were argued during the hearing of the appeal. In order to appreciate them, a statement of facts is necessary. Thomas Reddi was adjudicated insolvent on 8th January 1924. The adjudication was annulled on 7th December 1927, by reason of the insolvent failing to apply for his discharge in time. While annulling the adjudication, the District Judge of Guntur passed the following order:I think that in the interest of the general body of creditors the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All467
Bennet, J.1. This appeal is brought by the decree-holder, Ram Charan Das against certain objectors, Bhagwat Saran, Ved Prakash and Rameshwar Prasad, a receiver. The appeal memorandum simply states that the appeal is against the decree of the Civil Judge of Moradabad dated 4th May 1938, and does not set out what relief is desired. The grounds of appeal deal with the case of Ved Prakash who was an objector and presumably the appeal is intended to be against the decree of the lower Court so far as it concerns Ved Prakash, The decree-holder had made an application for execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 60 of 1929 and F.A. No. 521 of 1930 in the High Court. The objection of Ved Prakash described as the minor son of Bhagwat Saran under the guardianship of one Babu Ram is that the decree was in no case passed against the objector and execution thereof cannot be taken out against him. This objection has been allowed by the Court below which has held that the decree in the suit is not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal337
1. Three persons, Paramsuk Chandra, Ashutosh Chandra and Harihar Chandra were heavily involved in debts in the year 1904. On 28th April 1904, they executed a trust deed by which they conveyed all their properties to Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nundi as trustee for payment of their debts (Ex; B, C 115). We have marked Part I, Vol. I as A; Part II Vol. I as B; Part II Vol. II as C; supplementary paper book Part I as D and supplementary paper book Part II as E. The trustee accepted the trust and was in possession of the trust estate up to his death in November 1929. He did not however render account of trust estate. While he was trustee some of the immovable properties of the trust estate, Sribati and others, were sold at the instance of creditors and were purchased by him. He also redeemed the ornaments which had been pledged by the Chandras to others and kept them in his possession as trustee. There is now no controversy regarding the title to mehals Sribati and others which he had purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1940All72
Ismail, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought for a declaration that the property described in the plaint was attachable and saleable in execution of decree No. 252 of 1928 and that the plaintiff was entitled to get rateable distribution out of the sale proceeds under other decrees in his favour. A declaration was prayed for that the two sale deeds of 22nd February 1934 executed by Hamid Ali in favour of Asgar Ali and others were ineffectual and void as far as the decrees in favour of the plaintiff were concerned. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the suit as framed was not maintainable inasmuch as it was not a representative suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the suit as framed was not maintainable. The lower Appellate Court however took a contrary view and held that this was a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., and the reliefs c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad161
1. This appeal is against an order made in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 10 of 1924 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore. The subject of the petition is a house No. 40, South Car Street, Chidambaram. Mythili, the decree-holder, was entitled under the decree to recover Rs. 5,800 from her husband Mahadevan, the judgment-debtor. To realize this sum she attached the aforesaid house as belonging to her husband. Janaki Ammal, mother of Mahadevan, filed a claim praying that the attachment should be raised on the ground that the house was her own. This claim was tried by the learned District Judge, South Arcot, who held that the house did belong to Janaki. Hence this appeal by Mythili, the decree-holder. The learned District Judge chiefly addressed himself to the question whether the purchase money for the house which was purchased in Janaki's name came out of Mahadevan's estate or was furnished by Janaki. He held that, apart from the oral evidence of Janaki, there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1940Mad329
Pandrang Row, J. 1. The charge against the accused is on two counts, and I desire that you should pay particular attention to the wording of the charge. In substance it relates to two sums of Rs. 4000 each paid into the hands of the accused by Mrs. Appasami on the 20th November 1933, and the 2nd March 1934, respectively in discharge of a mortgage for Rs. 8000 executed by her husband, the late Dewan Bahadur Paul Appasami in 1923 in favour of the Foreign Mission at Pondicherry of which Father Pinel who was examined before you was Procurator at all material times. The particular point to which I wish to draw your attention is that the charge itself is to the effect that by receiving these amounts in his capacity as an attorney or agent of the Mission and by failing to pay the same to Father Pinel the accused had committed criminal breach of trust. You will thus see that the charge says that the non-payment to Father Pinel after entrustment by Mrs. Appaswami constitutes criminal breach of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal578
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was one commenced under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., for establishing his title to the property in suit. Defendant 1 is the decree-holder, who obtained a money decree against defendants 2-5. This decree was put into execution in Money Execution Case No. 30 of 1935 of the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge of Howrah and the property in suit was attached. The plaintiff thereupon preferred a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., but that claim was refused, and following the adverse decision in the claim proceeding the present suit was started. The plaintiff's case in substance is that the property in suit belonged to Debendra Nath Sadhukhan, defendant 5, who was one of the judgment-debtors, and he made a gift of it in favour of his wife by a document which was executed on 3rd May 1933. The plaintiff purchased the property by a kobala from Mrinalini on 9th May 1935, for a consideration of Rs. 2000 only and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal326
ORDEREdgley, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 45, Calcutta Police Act (Bengal Act 4 of 1866). It is said that he was found in a common gaming house which was Used for the purpose of gambling in connexion with horse-racing. In the case of this sort, the onus clearly lay upon the prosecution to show that the house in which the petitioner was found was a common gaming house as denned in Section 3 of the Act. In order to satisfy the requirements of this Section, it would be for the prosecution to show that instruments of gaming were kept or used in that house for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying using or keeping such house.2. It is said, that the petitioner was found with Ex. 2 which is a slip of paper containing certain figures and the names of race-horses and also with a sum of money in his pocket. I have examined the slip of paper; and, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it fulfils the requirements of the definition of 'instruments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Porter: The appellant company are incorporated in Gibraltar and carry on business as an investment company. The appellant, John Mackintosh, is a director of that company. In May 1935 the appellants were anxious to borrow a large sum of Spanish pesetas as they did not wish to convert English pounds sterling into that currency, and at that time the respondent had on deposit at Barclays Bank in Gibraltar a credit of over 500,000 pesetas standing in the names of Messrs. Carrara King and Marsh who were trustees of her late husband. The respondent is an old lady 82 years of age, whose business affairs were managed by her nephew one Eugenic Gross. Mr. King, who was a friend of both Mr. Mackintosh and the respondent, having heard that the appellants desired to borrow pesetas approached Mr. Mackintosh and arranged with him that the respondent should lend and the appellants borrow the sum of 500,000 pesetas at 3 per cent. interest per annum. Accordingly the appellants executed a bond dated ...
Tag this Judgment!