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

1951 Supreme(Cal) 247

P.B.MUKHARJI
NRISINGH PROSAD PAUL – Appellant
Versus
STEEL PRODUCTS LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.P.KAR

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) I have no hesitation in dismissing, this application for amendment of the written statement.

( 2 ) IN this application the defendant asks for amendment of its written statement after about, five years. The suit was filed in 1946 and so was the written statement. I am satisfied that this application is not bona fide and the unusual delay is not explained by the affidavits.

( 3 ) AN attempt to explain the long period of five years is made in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition of the defendant company. The substance of that explanation is that some of the officers of the defendant company were alleged to have committed certain offences under the Defence of India Act and the Iron and Steel Control Order and in connection with the investigation of the case all books, papers and documents including the files relating to the disputes in the suit were taken over by the police. But even then these cases ended in the acquittal of the officers in July 1950. For the period from July 1950 until 11-7-1951 just about a year, no explanation is offered. In para. 4 of the petition it is alleged that while the eases were-pending the papers remained in the custody of the police











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