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

1994 Supreme(Cal) 66

RABIN BHATTACHARYYA, S.K.MUKHERJEE
BANSAL TEA WAREHOUSE – Appellant
Versus
FALAKATA INDUSTRIES LTD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Jayanta Mitra, P.K.JHUNJHUNWALA, Prabir Kumar Samanta, S.K.KANODIA, S.K.KAPOOR

( 1 ) THE appeal has come up before us for admission under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on being mentioned, on behalf of the appellants. Since there was a Caveat, copy of the proposed application in connection with the appeal for interim order as also the supplementary affidavits, which we direct, would form part of the said application, had been served on the learned Advocate filing the Caveat and, accordingly the caveators are represented by their learned Advocate before us at the time of hearing of the appeal for admission and the application.

( 2 ) WE have heard out the appeal and the application together after admitting the appeal.

( 3 ) SINCE, admittedly, the application for injunction is pending consideration by the Trial Court upon contest, we proposed to hear out the First Miscellaneous Appeal, and the connected application for interim order together finally and the learned counsel, representing the parties, have, indicated their 'no objection' to such a procedure. We have, accordingly, heard out the appeal and the application after dispensing with all formalities including those relating to the preparation of paper book. Separate service of notice 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