LexHOWRAH INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
356 HOWRAH INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS GUPTA August 20, 1975 [A. N. R/l.Y, C.J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J Surety Bond, enforcen1e11t of-Bo(ld in favour of District Judge of Agartala, "!tis successors, successors-ln-ofjice and assigns''-Transfcr of suit to the Court of Subordinate Judge; Agarta/a-Subordinate Judge, if inconipetent to fhf"Jr'Q. surety bond. Code of C,ii:i/ Procedure, Sections 145(c) and 150. l\Iessers Das Dank Ltd. instituted a mortgage suit against the respond~r:t on January 19, 1950 in respect of the tea garden mortgaged with them in 1943. On reorganisation of the Judicial Administration in Tripura, the suit was transferred from the Tr'.pura lligh Court to the court of the District Judge, Agartala. 0!1 the application by the Bank for appointment of a ·receiver, an employee of the Bank \Vas appointe~ as the receiver subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50.000. The Receiver took possession of the estate on 22nd January. 00 February 26. 19$0- _the tea garden was damaged by a fire Which d~stroyed over 3,000 tea saplings. The respondent moved an application ask~ng for daai:.1· ge:; from the Receiver on the ground that the fire had occurred due to his neg. Iigence. He also renewed his request that the receiver be asked to furnish security. - _On August 26, 1950, the appellant l\I/s. Howrah lnsurance Co. executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 in favour of Shri R. l\.f. Goswami, District Judg~. Agartala, h'.s successors, successors-in-office and assigns. The bond was approved and accepted by the District Judge on October IO; 1950. Thi bo:id was executed b::>th by the Receiver and the appellant in favour of "'Sri Rama:ii l\.IOhan Goswami the District Judge of Agarta]a, his successqrs, successors-in- office and assigns." By the bond, the executants bound themselves jointly and severally in the whole of the am1Junt of Rs. 50,000 uo to the District Judge, Agartala, his successors. successors-in-office and assigns. The bond, though ex- ecuted on August 26, 1950, related back to January 22, 1950 being the date \Nb.en the Receiver took possession of the property. By yirtue of the powers conferred by the Trioura (Courts) Order of 1950 -\vhich· came into force on D~cember 31, 1950 th! District Judge transferred the mortgage suit to the court of the Sub- ordinate Ju1ge, Agarta1a. ·The transferee court was created under the Order of 1950. The Subordinate Judg-! decreed the suit and also allowed the responder.t's appEcation for damages to the extent of Rs. 32,525. The appeal filed by the Receiver was dismissed for default by the Judicial Commissioner, Tripura, bat he allo\ved the respondent's-·cross-objections and enhanced the damages to ' Rs. 41,525_- On the Execution Petition filed by the respondent, the Subordin::te . Judge". directed that the' damages awarded to the respondent be recovered fror.i the apr.ellant. The apperiI filed by the appellant against that order \Vas disIT'3.<;- sed by the Judicial Commissioner and this appeal has been preferred on the basis of the special leave granted by this Court. It was contended for the appellant that (1) The Subordinate Judge \\ho tried the suit \Vas incomoetent to enforce the surety bond executed by the appellant as .he \Vas neither the successor nor the successor-in-office nor the a'isign of the District Judge; and (2) Under the terms of the bond, the appellant was not ans- \Verablc for the loss caused to the tea garden by fire. Rejecting the conten~ions and dismissing the apPeal,. HELD: (l)(i) The Subordinate Judge of Agartala may not be the succes- sor-iri-·lffice of the District Judge because- .. successor-in-office" would mean suc- cessor '1f the District Judge in the post or office of the District Judge. But the Subo!" _:inate Judge, Agartaia is, for the purposes of the present proceedin;c;, a A B -~ • c '-• D E F G .. H \' HOWRAH INSURANCE co. v. s. M. DASGUPTA (Chandrachud, J.) 357 A successor of the District Judge who was seized of the suit and who transferred it to the Subordinate Judge under the Tripura (Courts) Order of 1959. The surety bond was executed in and for the purposes of the particular proceedings which --r \Vere pending before the District Judge, in order .that the bond should be en- forceable at the instance of the presiding officer of the court. "Succes:!or", therefore. must in the context mean the court which for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.