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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 231

BANERJEE, HARRIES
DINENDRO MULLICK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.BHATTACHARJEE, A.N.ROY, H.N.SANYAL, S.K.MUKHERJEE, S.M.BOSE

BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the owner of premises No. 8, Esplanade Row East, in Calcutta, situate within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. In July 1927, he created a mortgage in favour of the Imperial Bank of India, by deposit of title deeds relating to the property for money lent.

( 2 ) BY a registered agreement dated 7-2-1938, made between the mortgagor and the Bank, two Receivers were appointed to take possession of the premises and realise the rents and profits thereof. By another agreement dated 22-12-1938, one of the Receivers was discharged and another appointed in his place, with like powers.

( 3 ) IN 1939, the Defence of India Act was passed and rules made thereunder. Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules empowered the Government of India to requisition any property, movable or immovable, if that was needed for the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of the war. But if the Government requisitioned a property, it was liable to pay compensation, the amount of compensation being determined under the provisions of Section 19, Defence of India Act. That section, so far as relevant, is as follows : " (1) Where by or under an








































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