Skip to content


Bogra Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramani Mohan Choudhury - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Cal569
AppellantBogra Bank Ltd.
RespondentRamani Mohan Choudhury
Excerpt:
- .....and costs. the petitioner purchased a certain property in execution of the decree in 1931. the learned munsif calculated that by the usufruct he had made a profit of rs. 136-12-0. now the learned munsif would have certainly been justified in making this a ground for refusing to give the petitioner any additional interest for the period between the passing of the original decree and the passing of the new decree. that question, however, does not arise in the present case, because the decree itself has given the petitioner the full amount of interest allowable under the provisions of the act. what the learned munsif has done is to deduct this amount from the new decree. what he is really doing is compelling the petitioner to make a refund of the profits he has realised from the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Henderson, J.

1. This rule is not opposed. The petitioner is the decree-holder. He does not dispute the right of the opposite party to have the decree reopened on his application under Section 36(6), Bengal Money-Lenders Act. He accepts the calculation of the Munsif of the new decree for Rs. 165-10-9 including principal, interest and costs. The petitioner purchased a certain property in execution of the decree in 1931. The learned Munsif calculated that by the usufruct he had made a profit of Rs. 136-12-0. Now the learned Munsif would have certainly been justified in making this a ground for refusing to give the petitioner any additional interest for the period between the passing of the original decree and the passing of the new decree. That question, however, does not arise in the present case, because the decree itself has given the petitioner the full amount of interest allowable under the provisions of the Act. What the learned Munsif has done is to deduct this amount from the new decree. What he is really doing is compelling the petitioner to make a refund of the profits he has realised from the property purchased in execution of the decree. There is no provision in the Act by which this can be done. The rule is made absolute. The new decree will be for Rs. 165-10-9. The first three annual instalments will be Rs. 50 each and a fourth instalment for the balance. There will be a further direction at the end of the order that anything in excess will be refunded by the petitioner to the opposite party.


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