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

1985 Supreme(Cal) 317

M.M.DUTT, JITENDRA NATH CHAUDHURI
ABANI KANTA PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
SAKTINATH MUKHERJI, Sephali Mukherjee, SHYAMA PRASANNA ROY CHOUDHURY, TAPAS MIDDYA

M. M. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) THIS application under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. filed at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against Order No. 108 dt. Nov. 19, 1984 of the learned Assistant District Judge, Bankura passed by him in Title Suit No. 34 of 1973.

( 2 ) THE said suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is a partner of a partnership firm having one-fourth share therein and carrying on business of the husking mill in question. He has also prayed for appointment of a Commissioner for accounts and for other incidental reliefs.

( 3 ) THE defendants opposite parties entered appearance in the suit and contested the same by filing a written statement. It was inter alia contended by them that the husking mill in question was owned and possessed by the opposite party 1, and the petitioner and the opposite parties 2 and 3 had no right, title and interest in the said husking mill business.

( 4 ) WHILE arguments were being advanced by the parties at the first hearing of the suit, the defendant opposite party 1 filed an application under O. 6, R. 17 of the Civil P. C, praying for amendment of the written statement for incorporating therein a statement to the effec











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