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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 403

PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, ALTAMAS KABIR
B. MOOKERJEE – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BIMAL KRISHNA CHATTERJI, C.R.DUTTA

A. KABIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th 'october, 1985, passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed on behalf of the defendant No. 5 in Suit No. 296 of 1980, dismissing the said application, upon holding that the point sought to be raised by the defendant No. 5 could well be taken in his written statement and the Trial Court could decide the point, if urged, at the hearing of the suit.

( 2 ) CERTAIN interesting points of law have been raised in this appeal, which has been preferred by the defendant No. 5 in the suit, which makes it necessary for us to set out the material facts leading to the filing of the above-mentioned application in the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 in the suit, National Rubber Manufacturers Ltd. , is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant No. 5 claims to be the Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 company.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 owned two factories and/or undertakings, one of which is located at Tangra, Calcutta, and the other at Kalyani in the District of Nadia. By two notifications dated 23rd December 1977, and 10th February, 1978, re














































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