Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Brojendra Nath Mitra vs Arman Sheikh on 11 February, 1918

Baneswar Singh And Ors. vs Abdul Hassan And Ors. on 30 May, 1927

13. We have been asked to refer this matter, as we have disagreed with certain decisions of this Court to a Fall Bench. I do not think that necessity, for such a reference has arisen. The decision in Kali Kishore v. Gopal Ram [1918] 23 C.W.N. 132 is based upon no reasoning and is attempted to be based on one of certain decisions which does not support it. We are further of opinion that one of the learned Judges who was a party to the decision took a contrary view in respect of a similar controversy in Brojendra v. Arman [1918] 27 C.L.J. 478. besides, the facts in Kali Kishore's case (1918) 23 C.W.N. 132 have not been fully reported and we do not know if the decree in that case is similarly worded as the decree in the case before us which leaves no room for doubt, in my mind, that it makes the sum decreed payable by the defendant alone. Taking all these circumstances into consideration we do not think that we are called upon in this case to refer the matter to a Pall Bench.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Raj Chandra Datta vs Habij Mohamed And Ors. on 4 June, 1929

2. The case of a mortgagee differs from that of a transferee inasmuch as in the case of a mortgagee the tenant still retains an interest in the holding and if the circumstances are such that the deposit can be regarded as made on behalf of the tenant, then certainly the mortgagee would be entitled to make the deposit. But I am of opinion that under Section 52, Act 8 of 1859 it was ''contemplated that the deposit must be made by the tenant or on his behalf. We find this is the construction which has been put upon Section 66(2), Bengal Tenancy Act where the wording is similar cf. Brojendra Nath v. Arman Shaikh [1918] 27 C.L.J. 478. There does not appear to be any reason why in the case of a non-transferable holding the landlord should be forced to receive a deposit from a stranger whose interest he is not bound to recognize unless this is specially laid down in the Act. In Section 170, Bengal Tenancy Act, Clause (2) of which is similarly worded, Clause (3) has been added to show that not only the judgment-debtor but any person having an interest in the holding voidable on the sale may make the deposit to relieve the holding from attachment and, under this clause it has been held that while a transferee cannot make the deposit a mortgagee can do so. If it is intended by Section 170 (2) that any one can make the deposit the addition of Cl (3) would be meaningless as already under Clause (2) the person referred to therein or any other person could make the deposit. Clause (3) is apparently to enlarge the category of persons who can make the deposit which otherwise would have been limited to judgment-debtors.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1