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

1966 Supreme(Cal) 230

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI
TINKARI SEN – Appellant
Versus
DULAL CHANDRA DAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL KUMAR MUKHERJI, BIMALA CHARAN DEB, Chittatosh Mookerjee

BIJAYESH MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS in an application "for re view and/or reconsideration" of my two orders one dated June 17, 1966 and the other dated June 22 following.

( 2 ) BY the first such 'order'--really it was a judgment--I made absolute the rule obtained by the landlords under Article 227 of the Constitution against an appellate order of affirmance arising out of proceedings for standardization of rent under Section 9 of the "1950 Act. " So I did, after having heard only Mr. Deb who with Mr. Anil Kumar Mukherjee was appearing in support of the rule. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Murari Mohan Mukherjee nor his pleader. Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee, appearing for the opposite party tenants, was present After the judgment was delivered, making the rule absolute, Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee mentioned the matter that very day (June 17, 1966), saying that the case was lost sight of. Thereupon I set it down for hearing on June 22, 1959 so that the matter might be heard in presence of both the parties. On June 22, however I did not find Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee nor his learned junior. I, therefore, ordered that the judgment I had rendered on June 17 previous would stand. More, I signed the j


















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