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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 57

D.BASU, B.N.BANERJEE
BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, P.N.MITTER, S.C.BOSE, S.M.BOSE

( 1 ) HAS this Court jurisdiction to vary an order, passed by consent, and relieve the appellant petitioner from the mischief of a default clause in an order made by this Court ? This is the question which we need answer in this matter.

( 2 ) IN Civil Rule No. 227 (m) of 1961, arising out of F. M. A. No. 77 of 1961, there was an order of injunction passed by this Court, restraining the State of Bihar from proceeding with Title Suit No. 45 of 1960, pending in the Court of a Subordinate Judge, at Hazaribagh, and from acting in violation of the terms of a previous compromise, on conditions hereinafter appearing:"by consent of parties, this Rule is made absolute and the injunction will continue till the disposal of the appeal on the following conditions; (1) The appellant company shall deposit in the Hazaribagh Subordinate Judge's Court, in title Suit No. 45 of 1960, Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) only by the 10th May, 1962 and shall also go on depositing Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) only by the 10th day of each succeeding month until disposal of the appeal, now pending in this Court, (2) In default of payment of any of the instalments as aforesaid, the Rule shall stand dis















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