HARI KISSEN KHETTRY Vs. FARRUKH SAYER
LAWS(CAL)-1960-8-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 19,1960

HARI KISSEN KHETTRY Appellant
VERSUS
FARRUKH SAYER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an application on behalf of the Official Receiver of this Court inter alia for an order that the respondent No. 1, Farrukh Sayer, the respondent No. 2 Khaleda Sultana, the respondent No. 3 Tahera Sultana and the respondent No. 4 J. C. Roy be committed to prison and be dealt with according to law for having committed contempt of this Court as mentioned in the petition herein. It would be necessary to set out some of the allegations in the petition of the Official Receiver. By an order dated the 28th August, 1958 on the application of the plaintiff decree-holder in execution of the decree passed in this suit against the defendant Farrukh Sayer the Official Receiver was appointed Receiver in execution inter alia, over premises No. 141, Howrah Road in the town of howrah. The order was made by g. K. Mitter, J. ; but this application has been specially assigned to me by the learned Chief Justice. G. K. Mitter, j. , was pleased to grant leave to the petitioner that is the Official Receiver to act on a signed copy of the minutes.
(2.) IN pursuance of this order the petitioner sent his representative, one Motilal Haldar, an Assistant of the petitioner, one Waziuddin, a Durwan of the petitioner and one Dhananjoy Chatterjee, an Officer of the petitioner to premises No. 141, Howrah Road in Howrah on the 30th August, 1958 at about 12. 30 P. M. They were also accompanied by the plaintiff Hari Kissen Khettry and one Satyendra Prasanna Bose, a clerk of the plaintiff's solicitors, Messrs. N. C. Bose and Co.
(3.) UPON reaching the premises the persons above named found the gate closed from inside. They knocked at the gate when it was opened. They then entered the premises and enquired of the Durwan about the defendant. The Durwan showed to them the office in the premises and requested them to see the defendant's manager in the office. When they came to the office the plaintiff identified J. C. Roy, the respondent No. 4 as the defendant's manager whereupon the petitioner's representative Motilal informed J. C. Roy of the object of their visit. Motilal showed to J. C. Roy the order of this Court dated the 28th August, 1958 and a copy of the tabular statement upon which the order was made and also intimated to him the purport of the order. Motilal requested J. C. Roy to make over possession of the premises including the movables and machinery in terms of the order. On going through the order and the tabular statement J. C. Roy said that the defendant was out. He refused to give any assistance in the matter of making over possession of any of the properties. Upon being asked by Motilal, J. C. Roy also refused to record anything in writing. Motilal thereupon wanted to have instructions from the petitioner over the telephone and requested J. C. Roy to allow him to use the telephone of the premises. But J. C. Roy said that the telephone was out of order. At that time the plaintiff in order to receive advice from his solicitors went out of the factory to use some other telephone. After some time Satyendra Prosonno Bose also went outside the premises.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.