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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 117

P.B.MUKHARJI
NITYANANDA GHOSE – Appellant
Versus
RAJPUR CHHAYA BANI CINEMA LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.C.SIRCAR, SAMBIT DAS

P.B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) ON this notice of motion taken out by the defendant Company, the application is made to stay the suit and all proceedings herein until the plaintiff has exhausted all his available remedies against the mortgaged property or until he abandons his mortgage security. The application is made under Section 68 (2), T. P. Act read with Sub-section (1) and Clause (a) thereof.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the point advanced by the applicant and in order to determine the point raised, it is necessary to refer to the nature of pleadings in this suit which the applicant wants to stay.

( 3 ) THIS suit was instituted by the plaintiff on or about 9th January 1952. In para. 1 of the plaint the claim against the defendant company is made only on the basis of its alleged liability as drawer of a Promissory Note dated 11th January 1949 for the sum of Rs. 40,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum payable on demand to the plaintiff or order. That is the only claim made in the plaint. In para 3 of the plaint the plaintiff pleads that the defendant also created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of a cinema house situate at Rajpur o












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