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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 118

GUHA RAY, K.C.DAS GUPTA
ADHAR CHANDRA MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
BISTU PADA GURE – Respondent


GUHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two rules at the instance of the Defendant petitioner are directed against two orders passed by a Small Cause Court Judge decreeing the Plaintiff's suits for the recovery of Rs. 500/-as the price of barga produce on the basis of a registered Kabulayat. The rules were heard analogously.

( 2 ) THE short point that has arisen for decision is whether the Court concerned had jurisdiction to try the suits.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 7 (1), West Bengal Bargadar's Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) every dispute between a bargadar and the owner regarding the division or delivery of the produce shall be decided by a Board established for the local area within which the land concerned is situated. Under Section 9 (2) of the same Act no Court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter required under Section 7 (1) to be decided by a Board referred to in that sub-section. Under Section 18 the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, etc. The cumulative effect of these provisions is obviously that the only forum available for the settlement of every dispute relating to matters mentioned in Section 7 (1) in the








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