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

1967 Supreme(Cal) 124

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI
GOTHAM CONSTRUCTION CO. – Appellant
Versus
AMULYA KRISHNA GHOSE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BISWAJIT GHOSH, Chittatosh Mookerji, LALA HEMANTA KUMAR, SAMIR KUMAR MUKHERJI

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant, Gotham Construction Co. , a firm, against whom the trial judge, and on appeal, the appellate judge as well, have granted a decree, permanently restraining it "from creating any sound nuisance in the workshop (of the firm) at 41 Jhautola Road arising out of hammering on steel or any other plates".

( 2 ) THE appellant's workshop at 41 Jhautola Road is one for "building the bodies of motor vehicles", as the averment in the second paragraph of the plaint is--an averment which the sixth paragraph of the appellant's written statement admits to be "substantially correct". Such is the admission too of the appellant firm's partner, Shri Haridas Goswami, as the 3rd witness for the defendant, in his evidence at the trial. Jhautola Road runs north to south. On the east of the road is "41" with the controversial workshop and also the residence of Shri Haridas Goswami and his family. Shri Bhudeb Sankhanidhi, the 3rd plaintiff (now the 3rd respondent), a director or Lalmohan Saha Sankhanidhi and Co. , with its head office in India, lives at the relevant time at 40 Jhautola Road on "the contiguous north and east" of which is "41". 4











































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