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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 50

HARRIES, BANERJEE
DUNGARMULL KISSENLAL – Appellant
Versus
SAMBHU CHARAN PANDEY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.Ghosh, E.R.Meyer, S.C.SEN

HARRIES, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree of Bose J. sitting on the Original Side, dated 6-4-1950, by which he dismissed a suit for the recovery of money said to be due under a promissory note.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for the recovery of Rs. 2057-8-0 being principal and interest due under a promissory note made by defedant 2 in favour of defedant 1 and endorsed by the latter in favour of the plaintiff The suit was filed under Order 37, Civil P. C. , on 8-7-1946. defedant 1 took no steps to defend the suit but defedant 2 applied for and obtained leave to defend the suit and the only matter before Bose J. was as to whether defedant 2 as the maker of the note was liable to the plaintiff to whom the note had been endorsed by defedant 1, the promisee.

( 3 ) IN the plaint the plaintiff was described as a firm registered under the Partnership Act and as such was entitled to bring the suit in the name of the firm. In the plaint it is pleaded that defedant 2 executed the promissory note in favour of defedant 1 the note being said to be for Rs. 2,000 payable on demand and bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum


































































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