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

1963 Supreme(Cal) 76

P.N.MUKHERJEE, K.C.SEN
INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JAMES MANTOSH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar, Mrinal Kumar Ghose, P.N.MITTER, SYAMA CHARAN MITTER

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant before us was the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages with interest and costs. The suit has been decreed in part by the learned trial Judge. Hence this appeal by the defendant. The material facts lie within a short compass and they may be stated as follows:

( 2 ) THE defendant was a tenant under the predecessor of the plaintiffs in respect of the shed and structures, described in Schedule A of the plaint. In or about the year 1939, the plaintiffs' said predecessor filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1939 in the Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for ejectment and damages. The suit was eventually compromised between the parties, but the defendant company did not vacate the disputed property in terms of the said compromise but remained in wrongful occupation of the same. While they were in such wrongful occupation, the property was requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules and the Government took possession of the same on February 2, 1944. The property was derequisitioned on November 21, 1945, and for the interval or intervening period, that is, from February 2, 1944, to November 21, 1945, the plaintiffs received mo















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