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

1960 Supreme(Cal) 199

B.N.BANERJEE, AMARESH ROY
JAGADISH CHANDRA SIKDAR – Appellant
Versus
SANTIMOYEE CHOUDHURI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Chandidas Roy Chowdhury, Pankaj Kumar Ghose

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS rule is directed against an order passed by the Third Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, deciding an issue as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court against the defendant

( 2 ) THE defendant, Jagdish Chandra Sikdar and his sister Nanibala Kundu used to carry on business in partnership at Cuttack, under the name and style of Messrs. Graduate Friends. Jagdish Chandra's daughter was married to the plaintiffs son. Dispute arose between the parties above named, inter alia, over certain sums of money payable to the plaintiff out of the partnership business. The disputes were referred to arbitration and under the Award the plaintiff became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of principal and interest.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant Jagdish Chandra Sikdar executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 2300/- in favour of the plaintiff, on October 1, 1936. The said promissory note, the plaintiff alleged, was executed in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note and thereupon the plaintiff, Santimoyee Devi, instituted a suit in the City Civil Cou


































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