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

1999 Supreme(SC) 730

S.B.MAJMUDAR, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Vivekananda Nidhi – Appellant
Versus
Asheema Goswami – Respondent


(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

(3) THE limited notice was issued in these proceedings at SLP stage to the following effect:

"ISSUE notice limited to the questions: (7) Once the amendment was granted, whether the trial court should have passed order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for returning the plaint for presentation before proper court; (2) Whether under these circumstances, the learned District Judge should have exercised administrative power under Section 24 without hearing the petitioner. Issue notice on stay application. Ad interim stay of further proceedings of Transferred Suit No. 359 of 1991 (renumbered as Title Suit No. 2 of 1996), pending before the Xth Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (W.B.)"

(4) WHEN the appeal was heard finally, the second point which, in our view, requires a closer scrutiny, arose for consideration. We are not inclined to consider the first point which appears to us, on the facts of this case, to be of a technical nature.

(5) SO far as the second point is concerned, a few relevant facts may be noted for appreciating the same.







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