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

1931 Supreme(Cal) 128

BUCKLAND
Bhicumchand Chururia – Appellant
Versus
Deepchand Doogar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - The plaintiff sues to re-cover Rs. 10,000 for principal and interest under an instrument of hypothecation, dated 17th February 1930 and for other sums said to be due from the defendant Deepchand Doogar, which instrument was made between the plaintiff and the defendant Chimniram Halaschand of the one part and the defendant Deepohand Doogar of the other part. In addition to Deepchand Doogar and Chimniram Halaschand there are four other parties, Padamchand Pannalal, Matichand Fulchand, Ramkissen Jaikissen and Labhchand Rekubchand, who may briefly be described either as attaching creditors or as creditors who have instituted proceedings or obtained decrees against Deepchand Doogar. The only defendants who have appeared by counsel at the hearing are Padamchand Pannalal and Matichand Fulchand.

2. The short facts of the case are that Deepchand Doogar, the son of Indirchand, who is said to have been born on 28th January 1910 was carrying on a business in Calcutta known as the New East Bengal Store, by his uncle and attorney Chandanmull, to whom he had granted a power-of-attorney, dated 15th August 1929 under which Chandanmull executed the deed of hypothecation in suit

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