SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Cal) 61

K.C.DAS GUPTA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
KARTICK CHANDRA MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
B. N. BANERJI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, CHANDRA NARAYAN LAIK, S.S.MUKHERJEE, SANKAR BANNERJI

( 1 ) THE question raised in this case is whether by receiving payment of certain amount of money as compensation for some lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, though under the terms as agreed upon between the petitioner who had executed a deed of mortgage in respect of these lands to the complainant, the whole of the compensation money was to be applied in the first place "in and towards reduction and satisfaction of the loans", the petitioner can be said to have dishonestly misappropriated this sum. On a complaint on behalf of the Metropolitan Bank that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 403, Penal Code, by receiving such money and omission to pay it to the Bank, The Magistrate issued a summons against the petitioner under Section 403, Penal Code. The accused appeared in Court and thereafter obtained this Rule which was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and opposite party to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed.

( 2 ) QUITE clearly, if there is a binding agreement under which the compensation money has to be applied towards reduction and satisfaction of the amount of the loan and the petitioner having received the sa


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top