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

1958 Supreme(Cal) 261

P.K.SARKAR, P.N.MUKHERJEE
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA – Appellant
Versus
SATDEO SARMA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM CHANDRA DUTT, BHABANI SANKAR BAKSHI, SATYENDRA PROSAD SEN

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal two interesting questions have been raised and they arise under the Calcutta Municipal Act, or to be more precise, under Rule 5 (4) of Schedule XVII thereof. The appeal is by the two defendants, the Corporation of Calcutta , and its Commissioner and it is directed against a decree of the court below declaring a certain order of the Commissioner bad and inoperative and declaring further that the notices, issued in connection with the carrying out of the order were inoperative and issuing also a permanent injunction to restrain the Corporation and its officers and men from giving effect to the said order and notices.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed under the following circumstances: that, on September 10, 1957, the defendant No, 2 Commissioner directed demolition of Premises No. 5 Tamsook Lane. Burrabazar, which is a partly one-storied, partly two-storied and partly three-storied building, under Rule 5 (4) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This was communicated to the plaintiff (who is a tenant of the said premises) by a notice, served on September 14, 1957, and he (the plaintiff) was also directed by the said notice to deposit Rs. 19




















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