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

1930 Supreme(SC) 16

LORD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR DINSHAH MULLA
JATINDRA NATH CHOWDHURY – Appellant
Versus
UDAY KUMAR DAS – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants : W. W. Box & Co.

Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 97 of 1929) from two decrees of the High Court (February 10, 1927), varying two decrees of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Khulna (May 13, 1925), and petition by the appellant in the second of the above consolidated appeals to vary an Order in Council dated December 17, 1924.

The two suits out of which the consolidated appeals arose were suits for arrears of rent and cesses, including inter it, for the same tenures, but for different periods.

The decree of the High Court, which varied the decree of the trial judge, gave effect to the Order in Council of December 17, 1924, made in a previous appeal relating to the same tenure.

Katyayani Debi Chowdhurani, who was the appellant in the second of the present consolidated appeals and had been an appellant in the previous appeal, in which the respondents were the same as in the present appeal, petitioned that the Order in Council dated December 17, 1924, should be varied, on the ground that it did not give effect to the judgment of the Board delivered on December 11, 1924.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The petition and the present appeal were heard together.

1931. Jan.
















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