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

1985 Supreme(Cal) 96

C.K.BANERJEE
KANTHAL INDIA LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ANANT PRASAD BHATIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.CHATTERJI, GOUR ROY CHOWDHURY, SURHID ROY CHOWDHURY

C. K. BANERJEE, J.


( 1 ) THESE are three applications. The two applications are for revocation of leave under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent taken out by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The other is an application for amendment of the plaint taken out by the plaintiff. By consent of the parties all the three applications are taken up and are heard together.

( 2 ) MR. Biswaroop Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendant 1 in the application taken out on his behalf for revocation of leave under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent submitted that on the basis of the plaint filed in this suit no cause of action against the defendant 1 arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, so far as the said defendant is concerned this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit. Mr. Gupta also urged that in any event the plaint does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever against the defendant No. 1. Therefore, no leave could be granted under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent inasmuch as the suit itself was not maintainable against the defendant 1. Similar contentions were also raised by Mr. Gour Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the defendant 2 on whose behalf the other app









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