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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 191

GUHA RAY
RANENDRA NATH PAL – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONERS OF DHULIYAN MUNICIPAL OFFICE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, NIRMAL CHANDRA CHOUDHURI, SATINDRA NATH ROY CHAUDHARY, Sovendra Madhab Basu

GUHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff appellant who is a contractor arises out of a suit for recovery of money and damages instituted against the Commissioners of the Dhulian Municipality. The facts are briefly as follows: According to the plaintiff he "constructed certain work according to the plan, estimate and rates sanctioned by the defendants in a meeting and he was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2895-10-0 from the defendants for the work done by him. The latter, however, declined to make any payment in spite of demand. He has, therefore, instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2895-10-0 as the costs of the work done by him and Rs. 290/- as damages. The defence inter alia was that the suit was not maintainable as there was no contract in writing between the plaintiff and the defendants duly signed and sealed with the common seal of the defendants in connection with the alleged work. It was also the case of the defendants that the suit was liable to be dismissed as no notice of the suit as provided by Section 533, Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, was served upon the defendants by the plaintiff before the institution of the suit.

( 2 ) SO far as the facts are concerned







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