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

1972 Supreme(Cal) 197

ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, M.M.DUTT
AHINDRA NATH MUKHOPADHYAYA – Appellant
Versus
MANMATHA NATH KURMI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BISWARANJAN GHOSAL, NAGENDRA MOHAN SHAH, S.K.ROY CHAUDHARY

M. M. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal hat been referred to the Special Bench by a Division Bench consisting of P. N. Mookerjee and Amiya Kumar Mookerji, JJ. under Part I, Chapter II, Rule 1, Proviso (ii) read with Chapter VII, Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules. The point of law which induced the learned Judges of the Division Bench to refer the appeal to the Special Bench is as follows:--Whether, in the case of a tank fishery, (that is, a tank which is being used for pisciculture or for fishing), where the right of pisciculture or fishing is, at the date of Vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, held under a lease from the owner intermediary, Section 6 (2) proviso Of the Act will have any application, and, if so, what will be its effect and what will be the rights of the particular intermediary and the particular lessee in respect of the said tank fishery including the right of pisciculture or fishing under the relevant provisions of this Statute, namely, Sections 5, 6 (1) and 6 (2) including the proviso.

( 2 ) IN order to consider the said point and the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to state the facts of the case. The disputed tank belonged to












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