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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 43

G.N.DAS
BHARAT CHANDRA MAITI – Appellant
Versus
GOUR CHANDRA ADAK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL KUMAR SETT, NIRMAL CHANDRA CHOUDHURI, PANCHANAN CHAUDHARY, SUDHANSHU KUMAR DEV

G. N. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the plaintiff against an order of Mr. J. C. Chakravartty, learned Munsif, staying the plaintiff's suit under Section 9 (2) read with Section 18 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The learned Munsif found negativing the defendant's contention that he was a Bhagchasi. It is not disputed that no Bhag Conciliation Board has been established in the area where these properties are situated. Section 9 (2) of the Act only applies to cases of disputes referred to in Section 7 (1) which requires to be decided by la Board referred to in that sub-section. The dispute 'which is now in question does not relate to any of the matters referred to in Section 7 (1) and as there is no Board established, the dispute, even if it came within Section 7 (1) cannot be said to be one which requires to be decided by a Board. In these circumstances, the order made by the learned Munsif staying the suit is wholly unauthorised.

( 2 ) IT was contended by Mr. Dey appearing for the opposite party that otherwise there will be a discrimination which will offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The discrimination, if any, will be between bargadars in an area where th

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