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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 4

CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, AMITABHA DUTTA
UMARANI SEN – Appellant
Versus
SUDHIR KUMAR DATTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASOKE DEY, B.K.BANERJEE, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY

CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of Rs. 7086. 44 p. as damages from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Balurghat and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1's appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Dinajpore and the suit in question was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's claim in the plaint was that they carried on business jointly under the trade name, Jaidurga Transport Company. The lower appellate court has found that the plaintiffs were members of an unregistered partnership firm. They were not the owners of the goods, which in pursuance of an alleged contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 were made over, at Calcutta, for carriage by the defendant's truck and delivery at plaintiffs branch office at Raigunj. At the time of the delivery of the said consignment, 16 packages were not delivered on the ground that they were stolen from the truck of the defendant No. 1. Seven bales were found damaged by water. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate court have concurrently upheld the contention of the






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