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

1970 Supreme(Cal) 139

P.N.MUKHERJEE, AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
GOWARDHANDAS RATHI – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dwijendra Narain Ghose, SATYENDRA PROSAD SEN

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff. It is directed against a decree of the learned trial Judge, dismissing the plaintiff's suit on a preliminary issue. That issue was in these terms: "where notices under Section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code necessary before filing this suit ? If so, should the suit fail for want of the said notice ?" This issue was answered by the learned trial Judge in the affirmative in both its parts, that is, against the plaintiff and, as a result thereof, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

( 2 ) ANOTHER issue was also discussed and decided by the learned trial Judge, namely, the issue of limitation, which was in the following terms: "is the suit barred by limitation ?" The issue, however, was found in favour of the plaintiff but, as, on the other issue, the suit had to be dismissed according to the learned trial Judge, his ultimate decree was a decree of dismissal. Against this decree, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE point before us arises in the following manner:

( 4 ) THE instant suit was a suit, in substance, for a permanent injunction against the defendan




















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