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

2005 Supreme(SC) 336

B.P.SINGH, ARUN KUMAR
Gagandeep Pratisthan Pvt. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Mechano – Respondent


Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—Application for condo­nation of delay in filing additional documents is allowed.

2. In this appeal by special leave the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of 16th August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 1 herein and setting aside the consent decree passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 12.1.1998. We may briefly refer to the facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal:

3. The Respondent No.1 herein was running a factory in a part of the premises in question measuring about 1040 sq. ft. He claimed to be a monthly tenant of the aforesaid premises paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The aforesaid respondent filed a suit for injunction before the second Munsif, Alipore Court to restrain his landlord from making any construction on the premises in question. The suit was ultimately transferred to the High Court of Calcutta and was registered as E.O. Suit No. 11 of 1996. The landlord disputed the tenancy claimed by the respondent herein and in the written statement a counter claim was made for recovery of possession from him. The appellant herein



















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