{"id":90912,"date":"1975-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975"},"modified":"2017-01-10T17:18:22","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T11:48:22","slug":"howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","title":{"rendered":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2051, \t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 356<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHOWRAH INSURANCE CO. LTD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS GUPTA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/08\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 2051\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 356\n 1975 SCC  (2) 523\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1988 SC 654\t (10,13)\n\n\nACT:\n     Surety Bond  enforcement of-Bond  in favour of District\nJudge of Agartala, \"his successors, successors-in-office and\nassigns\"-Transfer of suit to the Court of Subordinate Judge,\nAgartala-Subordinate Judge, if incompetent to enforce surety\nbond.\n     Code of Civil Procedure. Sections 145(c) and 150.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Messers  Das  Bank\t Ltd.  instituted  a  mortgage\tsuit\nagainst the  responded on January 19, 1950 in respect of the\ntea garden mortgaged with them in 1943. On reorganisation of\nthe  Judicial  Administration  in  'Tripura,  the  suit\t was\ntransferred from  the Tripura High Court to the court of the\nDistrict Judge, Agartala. On the application by the Bank for\nappointment of\ta receiver,  an employee  of  the  Bank\t was\nappointed as the receiver subject to his furnishing security\nin the\tsum of\tRs. 50,000.  The Receiver took possession of\nthe estate  on 22nd  January, on  February 26, 1 950 the tea\ngarden was  damaged by a tire which destroyed over 3,000 tea\nsaplings. The  respondent moved\t an application\t asking\t for\ndamages from  the Receiver  on the  ground that the fire had\noccured due  to his  negligence. He also renewed his request\nthat the receiver be asked to furnish security.\n     On August 26, 1950, the appellant M\/s. Howrah Insurance\nCo. executed  a surety\tbond in\t the sum  of Rs.  50,000  in\nfavour of  Shri R. M. Goswami, District Judge, Agartala, his\nsuccessors, successors-in-office  and assigns.\tThe bond was\napproved and  accepted by  the District judge on October 10,\n1950. The  bond was  executed both  by the  Receiver and the\nappellant  in  favour  of  \"Sri\t Ramani\t Mohan\tGoswami\t the\nDistrict Judge\tof Agartala,  his successors, successors-in-\noffice and  assigns.\" By  the  bond,  the  executants  bound\nthemselves jointly  and severalty in the whole of the amount\nof Rs.\t50,000\tup  to\tthe  District  Judge  Agartala,\t his\nsuccessors,  successors-in-office  and\tassigns.  The  bond,\nthough executed\t on August 26, 1950, related back to January\n22, 1950 being the date when the Receiver took possession of\nthe property.  By virtue  of the  powers  conferred  by\t the\nTripura (Courts)  order of  1950 which\tcame into  force  on\nDecember  31,\t1950  the  District  Judge  transferred\t the\nmortgage  slit\tto  the\t court\tof  the\t Subordinate  Judge.\nAgartala. The  transferee court\t was created under the order\nof 1950.  The Subordinate  Judge decreed  the suit  and also\nallowed the  respondent's application  for  damages  to\t the\nextent of  Rs. 32,525.\tThe appeal filed by the Receiver was\ndismissed  for\t default  by   the  Judicial   Commissioner,\n'Tripura, but  he allowed  the respondent's cross-objections\nand enhanced  the damages  to Rs.  41,525. On  the Execution\nPetition filed\tby the\trespondent,  the  Subordinate  Judge\ndirected that  the damages  awarded  to\t the  respondent  be\nrecovered  from\t the  appellant\t The  appeal  filed  by\t the\nappellant against  that order  a, dismissed  by the Judicial\nCommissioner and this appeal has been preferred on the basis\nof the special leave \"ranted by this Court.\n     It was  contended\tfor  the  appellant  that  (l)\t'The\nSubordinate Judge  who tried  the suit\twas  incompetent  to\nenforce the  surety bond executed by the appellant as he was\nneither the  successor nor  the successor-in-office  nor the\nassign of The District Judge; and (2) Under the terms of the\nbond, the  appellant was  not answerable for the loss caused\nto the tea garden by fire.\n     Rejecting the contentions and dismissing the appeal,\n     HELD: (  I )  (i) Th  Subordinate Judge of Agartala may\nnot be the successor-in-office of the District Judge because\n\"successor-in-office\" would  mean successor  of the District\nJudge in  the post  or office of the District Judge. But the\nSubordinate Judge,  Agartala is,  for the  purposes  of\t the\npresent proceedings, a\n357\nsuccessor of  the District  Judge who was seized of the suit\nand who\t transferred it\t to the\t Subordinate Judge under the\nTripura (Courts) order of 1950. The surety bond was executed\nin and\tfor the purposes of the particular proceedings which\nwere Pending  before the  District Judge,  in order that the\nbond should  be enforceable at the instance of the presiding\nother of  the court.  \"Successor\", therefore,  must  in\t the\ncontext mean the court which for the time being is seized of\nthe proceedings. [359B-C]\n     (ii) By virtue of s. 1 SO C.P.C., the Subordinate Judge\nwas entitled  to exercise  the same  powers in the matter of\nthe enforcement\t of the\t bond as the District Judge himself.\n[359D-E]\n     (iii) As  laid down by section 145(c) of tho C.P.C., by\nthe surety  bond, the  appellant rendered itself liable as a\nsurety for  the fulfilment  of the conditions imposed on the\nReceiver under\tthe orders  passed by  the Court, Therefore,\nthe order for the recovery of damages obtained by respondent\nagainst the  Receiver can  be executed against the appellant\nto the\textent to which it rendered itself personally liable\nunder the terms of the bond. [359-FG]]\n     (2) 'The  Receiver Was  put in  possession of  the\t tea\ngarden in  his capacity\t as a  Receiver and parties had made\ncontentions from  time to  time as to whether the tea garden\nwas managed by the Receiver economically and efficiently The\nsurety bond  which was\tgiven retrospective  operation\twith\neffect from  the  date\ton  which  the\tReceiver  had  taken\nPossession of  the  mortgaged  property\t including  the\t tea\ngarden, would therefore cover the loss occasioned to the tea\ngarden due to the Receiver's default. [360B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1611 of<br \/>\n1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated 29-70  of the  Judicial Commissioner&#8217;s  Court Tripura,<br \/>\nAgartala in Civil Misc. 1st Appeal No. 4 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n<p>     S. V.  Gupte, D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the respondent.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHANDRACHUD, J.  By a  deed of  mortgage dated February<br \/>\n10, 1943  the respondent  mortgaged a  tea garden called the<br \/>\n&#8220;Ishanchandrapar Tea  Estate&#8217;  to  M\/s.\t Das  Bank  Ltd.  On<br \/>\nJanuary 19,  1950 the  Bank  instituted\t Mortgage  Suit\t No.<br \/>\n2\/1950 against&#8217;the  respondent on  the original\t Side of the<br \/>\nTripura High  Court, for recovering the amount due under the<br \/>\nmortgage. On  reorganisation of\t the Judicial Administration<br \/>\nin Tripura,  the suit  was transferred\tto the\tcourt of the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge,\t Agartala. On  January\t20,  1950  the\tBank<br \/>\napplied for the appointment of a Receiver. On the District..<br \/>\nJudge directing\t that the Bank should nominate a Receiver in<br \/>\nterms of clause 12 of the mortgage deed, first the Secretary<br \/>\nof the\tBank and  later another employee called Adhir Ranjan<br \/>\nDutta  was   appointed\tas   the  Receiver  subject  to\t his<br \/>\nfurnishing security  in the  sum of Rs. 50,000. The Receiver<br \/>\ntook possession\t of the estate on 22nd January but since the<br \/>\nsecurity  was  not  furnished,\tthe  court  directed  on  an<br \/>\napplication of\tthe  respondent\t that  the  Receiver  should<br \/>\nfurnish the  requisite security\t within the  time allowed to<br \/>\nhim. On\t February 26  1950 the\ttea garden  was damaged by a<br \/>\nfire which  destroyed  over  3,000  tea\t saplings.  On\t28th<br \/>\nFebruary, the  respondent moved\t an application\t asking\t for<br \/>\ndamages from the Receiver<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">358<\/span><br \/>\non the\tground\tthat  the  fire\t had  occurred\tDue  to\t his<br \/>\nnegligence. The respondent also renewed his request that the<br \/>\nReceiver be asked to furnish security.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On August\t26, 1950 the appellant M\/s. Howrah Insurance<br \/>\nCo. Ltd.  executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 in<br \/>\nfavour of  Shri R. M. Goswami, District Judge, Agartala, his<br \/>\nsuccessors successors-in-office\t and assigns.  The bold\t was<br \/>\napproved and  accepted by  the District Judge on October 10,<br \/>\n1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By virtue\tof  the\t powers\t conferred  by\tthe  Tripura<br \/>\n(Courts) order\tof 1950\t which came  into, force on December<br \/>\n31, 1950 the District Judge transferred the mortgage suit to<br \/>\nthe court of the Subordinate Judge, Agartala. The transferee<br \/>\ncourt was created under the order of 1 950. C<br \/>\n     The application filed by the respondent on February 28,<br \/>\n1950 for damages was heard along with the mortgage suit. The<br \/>\nlearned Subordinate  Judge decreed the suit on May 31, 1956,<br \/>\nbut he also allowed the respondent&#8217;s application for damages<br \/>\nto the\textent of  Rs. 32,525. He directed that the Receiver<br \/>\nshould pay  the amount\twithin two months, failing which the<br \/>\namount should  be recovered from the security of Rs. 50,000.<br \/>\nCivil Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 22 of 1956 filed by the<br \/>\nReceiver against that order was dismissed for default by the<br \/>\nJudicial commissioner, Tripura on December 18, 1959. But, he<br \/>\nallowed the  respondent&#8217;s cross-objections  and enhanced the<br \/>\ndamages to Rs. 4],525.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On October 4, 1961 respondent filed in the court of the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Execution Petition No. 39 of 1961 against<br \/>\nthe Receiver  and the  appellant praying  that execution  do<br \/>\nissue, against\tthe appellant  as directed by the Court. The<br \/>\nappellant filed\t this objections  to that  petition but\t the<br \/>\nlearned Judge  rejected the objections and directed that the<br \/>\ndamages awarded\t to the\t respondent be\trecovered  from\t the<br \/>\nappellant. The\tappellant filed an appeal against that order<br \/>\nbut it was dismissed by the learned Judicial Commissioner on<br \/>\nJune 29.  1970. This  appeal by\t special leave\tis  directed<br \/>\nagainst that judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of  the appellant<br \/>\nhas raised  two contentions  (l) The  Subordinate Judge\t who<br \/>\ntried the  suit is  incompetent to  enforce the\t surety bond<br \/>\nexecuted by the appellant as he is neither the successor nor<br \/>\nthe successor-in-office\t nor  the  assign  of  the  District<br \/>\nJudge; and (2) Under the terms of the bond, the appellant is<br \/>\nnot answerable\tfor the\t loss caused  to the  tea garden  by<br \/>\nfire.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Both of  these contentions\t turn on  the terms  of\t the<br \/>\nsurety bond  and it is therefore necessary to have a look at<br \/>\nthat bond.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The bond  is executed  both be  the  Receiver  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant  in  favour  of  &#8220;Sri\t Ramani\t Mohan\tGoswami\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge\tof Agartala  his successors,  successors-in-<br \/>\noffice and  assigns&#8221;. By  the  bond,  the  executants  bound<br \/>\nthemselves jointly  and severally in the whole of the amount<br \/>\nof Rs.\t50,000 up  to  the  District  Judge.  Agartala,\t his<br \/>\nsuccessors,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">359<\/span><br \/>\nsuccessors-in-office and  assigns. The bond, though executed<br \/>\non August  26, 1950,  relates back to January 22, 1950 being<br \/>\nthe date when the Receiver took possession of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is urged that the bond can be enforced only by or at<br \/>\nthe  instance  af  the\tDistrict  Judge,  Agartala,  or\t his<br \/>\nsuccessors,  successors-in-office   of\t assigns   and\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Agartala not being either of these, it is<br \/>\nincompetent  for   him\tto  enforce  the  bond.\t We  see  no<br \/>\nsubstances in  this contention.\t The  Subordinate  Judge  of<br \/>\nAgartala may not be the successors-in-office of the District<br \/>\nJudge because  &#8220;successor-in-office&#8221; would mean successor of<br \/>\nthe District  Judge in\tthe post  or office  of the District<br \/>\nJudge. But  the Subordinate  Judge,  Agartala  is,  for\t the<br \/>\npurposes of  the present  proceedings, a  successor  of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge\t  who  was   seized  of\t the  suit  and\t who<br \/>\ntransferred it\tto the\tSubordinate Judge  under the Tripura<br \/>\n(Courts) order\tof 1950. The surety bond was executed in and<br \/>\nfor the\t purposes of  the particular  proceedings which were<br \/>\npending before\tthe District  Judge, in\t order that the bond<br \/>\nshould be  enforceable at  the\tinstance  of  the  presiding<br \/>\nofficer of  the court.\t&#8220;Successor&#8221;, therefore,\t must in the<br \/>\ncontext mean the court which for the time being is seized of<br \/>\nthe proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under section  150 of the Code of Civil Procedure, save<br \/>\nas otherwise  provided, where  the business  of any Court is<br \/>\ntransferred to any other Court, the transferee Court has the<br \/>\nsame powers  and is  entitled to  perform the same duties as<br \/>\nthose respectively  conferred and  imposed by  the Code upon<br \/>\nthe transferor\tCourt. The  surety bond\t was a\tpart of\t the<br \/>\nproceedings pending  before the\t District Judge\t and on\t the<br \/>\ntransfer of  the Suit  the entire proceedings, including the<br \/>\nbond.  stood   validly\ttransferred  to\t the  Court  of\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge.  Thus, by  virtue  of  section  150,\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  was entitled\t to exercise the same powers<br \/>\nin the matter of the enforcement of the bond as the District<br \/>\nJudge himself.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 145(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides,<br \/>\nto the\textent material,  that where  any person  has become<br \/>\nliable as  a surety  for the  fulfilment  of  any  condition<br \/>\nimposed on  any person\tunder an  order of  the Court in any<br \/>\nsuit or\t in any\t proceeding J consequent thereon, the decree<br \/>\nor order may be executed against the surety to the extent to<br \/>\nwhich he  has rendered\thimself personally  liable,  in\t the<br \/>\nmanner provided\t for the execution of decrees. By the surety<br \/>\nbond, the  appellant rendered  itself liable as a surety for<br \/>\nthe fulfilment\tof the\tconditions imposed  on the  Receiver<br \/>\nunder the  orders passed  by the court. Therefore, the order<br \/>\nfor the\t recovery of  damages  obtained\t by  the  respondent<br \/>\nagainst the  Receiver can  be executed against the appellant<br \/>\nto the\textent to which it rendered itself personally liable<br \/>\nunder the terms of the bond.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There is  no substance in the second contention either.<br \/>\nUnder the  bond, the  appellant rendered  itself liable\t &#8220;in<br \/>\nrespect of  any loss  or. damage  occasioned by\t any act  or<br \/>\ndefault of  the Receiver  in relation  to his duties as such<br \/>\nReceiver as  aforesaid&#8221;. The  fire having been caused due to<br \/>\nthe Receiver&#8217;s\tnegligence in  the performance of his duties<br \/>\nthe appellant  is liable to make good the loss caused to the<br \/>\ntea garden by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">360<\/span><br \/>\nfire. Learned  counsel for  the appellant however urged that<br \/>\nthe appointment of the Receiver was limited to the stock-in-<br \/>\ntrade, machinery  and movables\tin the tea garden and to the<br \/>\nfactory premises  and since  the Receiver owed no obligation<br \/>\nin relation  to the  tea garden,  the appellant would not be<br \/>\nliable for  the loss caused thereto by the fire. Reliance is<br \/>\nplaced\tin  support  of\t this  argument\t on  the  words\t &#8220;as<br \/>\naforesaid&#8221; which  qualify the  words  &#8220;in  relation  to\t his<br \/>\nduties&#8221;. The  surety bond  has, undoubtedly, to be construed<br \/>\nstrictly but  it is impossible to accept the contention that<br \/>\nthe Receiver  owed no  duty or\tobligation in respect of the<br \/>\ntea garden.  He was  put in  possession of the tea garden in<br \/>\nhis capacity  as a  Receiver and  indeed  parties  had\tmade<br \/>\ncontentions from  time to  time as to whether the tea garden<br \/>\nwas managed  by the  Receiver economically  and efficiently.<br \/>\nThe surety bond would therefore cover the loss occasioned to<br \/>\nthe  tea  garden  due  to  the\tReceiver&#8217;s  default.  It  is<br \/>\nsignificant that  though the  bond was\texecuted six  months<br \/>\nafter the  tea garden  was damaged  by the fire it was given<br \/>\nretrospective operation\t with effect  from January  22, 1950<br \/>\nbeing the date on which the Receiver had taken possession of<br \/>\nthe mortgaged property including the tea garden.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For these\treasons\t we  confirm  the  judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial  Commissioner and  dismiss this appeal with<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.M.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">361<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2051, 1976 SCR (1) 356 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: HOWRAH INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RESPONDENT: SOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS GUPTA DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/08\/1975 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. RAY, A.N. (CJ) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\",\"name\":\"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975","datePublished":"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975"},"wordCount":1539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975","name":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T11:48:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/howrah-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sochindra-mohan-das-gupta-on-20-august-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sochindra Mohan Das Gupta on 20 August, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}