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

1960 Supreme(Cal) 114

B.N.BANERJEE, P.N.MUKHERJEE, B.K.GUHA
KAMAL KUMAR NAG CHOUDHURY – Appellant
Versus
PARBATI CHARAN KUNDU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL KUMAR SETTI, MANINDRA NATH GHOSH, PRAFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE

F. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under proviso (ii) to Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules and the point referred relates to extension of time under Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. The point has arisen in connection with the setting aside of a sale under Section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act but the reference is much more comprehensive as the question has been framed in such a way as to include as well cases under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is a family likeness in the two classes of cases and so far as the present point is concerned, it is pre-eminently a matter which is better and more effectively dealt with at once, or, at one and the same time, in relation to the above two statutory provisions.

( 2 ) THE instant case, out of which this reference arises, was one for setting aside a sale under Section 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The application under the section was filed by one of the judgment-debtors. The trial court found in favour of the applicant both on the question of 'substantial injury (undervaluation and inadequacy of price) and the requisite fraud and material irregularity "in publishing and c










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