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

1999 Supreme(Cal) 335

BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA
AMALA DAS – Appellant
Versus
UNITED PROGRESSIVE COMPANY LTD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMITAVA GHOSH, DILIP MONDAL, SAMIR CHOUDHURY, SUDHIR DAS GUPTA, TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA

B. M. MITRA, J.

( 1 ) THE present revisional application is taken up for hearing on contest being directed against Order No. 235, dated 25. 6. 98 passed by the 9th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore in T. S. No. 34 of 1983. By the impugned order an application for amendment was allowed. The connected suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 11. 1. 80 and for other ancillary reliefs. The material allegations contained in the plaint of the connceted suit were controverted by filing of a written statement. On the death of the original defendant No. 1, his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. In the said suit initially an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was caused to be filed with a view to incorporate paragraph 6a in the body of the plaint for assertion of the plaintiffs' claim to get back the amount spent for the running and maintenance of the cinema business, including certain sum together with interest payable thereon at 18% rate of interest. Even a prayer in terms of d (i) was sought to be included for a decree of recovery of a given sum of Rs. 2,09,915. 33p.



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