Skip to content


Maharani Kamsundari Vs. Durganand Jha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 1735 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Cal151
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rule 2A
AppellantMaharani Kamsundari
RespondentDurganand Jha and ors.
Advocates:J.N. Roy, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....purpose stated hereinbefore. mr. roy tendered unqualified apology on behalf of the trustee-respondents.4. in the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the said sale was made without understanding the implication thereof and bona fide for the protection of the properties of the darbhanga rai estate. in the circumstances, in our opinion, we think fit to accept the unqualified apology tendered by mr. roy on behalf of his clients.5. against the respondent no. 4 it does not appear to us that there is any case made out in the petition. in our opinion, he has been unnecessarily dragged into this proceeding.6. for the aforesaid reasons, we do not think fit to pass any order in this application save and except that the trustee-respondents shall pay the costs of this.....
Judgment:

S.C. Ghose, C.J.

1. This application has been made against the respondents for committing them to prison or visiting them with such punishment as this Court may think proper on account of violation of court's order of injunction restraining the respondents from selling, disposing of, transferring or in any way encumbering any of the assets of the Estate and from incurring any liability until further orders. This order was passed in an appeal for the removal of the trustees from their offices on 22nd June 1979 and thereafter confirmed in the presence of the parties.

2. At the material time after the said order of injunction was in force the trustee-respondents sold a metergauge saloon as also a shed belonging to the Darbhanga Rai Estate.

3. Mr. J.N. Roy appearing on behalf of the trustees admitted that such sale was made but the same, accordingto him was not made in a contumacious disobedience of the order of the Court. The said sale was made to avoid waste and inasmuch the said properties could not be maintained or protected by the trustees. Mr. Roy tendered unconditional apology for the said sale made by the trustees without knowing the implication of violating the order of the Court. The said sale, according to Mr. Roy, was made bona fide for the purpose stated hereinbefore. Mr. Roy tendered unqualified apology on behalf of the trustee-respondents.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the said sale was made without understanding the implication thereof and bona fide for the protection of the properties of the Darbhanga Rai Estate. In the circumstances, in our opinion, we think fit to accept the unqualified apology tendered by Mr. Roy on behalf of his clients.

5. Against the respondent No. 4 it does not appear to us that there is any case made out in the petition. In our opinion, he has been unnecessarily dragged into this proceeding.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not think fit to pass any order in this application save and except that the trustee-respondents shall pay the costs of this application to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 shall pay and bear his own costs.

R.N. Pyne, J.

7. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //