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

2004 Supreme(Cal) 586

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, TAPAN KUMAR DUTT
HINDUSTAN LAMINATORS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MIHIR LAL BHATTACHARYA, MOLOY ROY, Sudhis Das Gupta

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length at the stage of admission of this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the 'code' ). By the order dated 20. 06. 03, which is under appeal, the learned Judge of 3rd Bench of the City Civil Court at calcutta held that the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit, being Title Suit no. 1653 of 2002, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under section 9 of the Code. As such, the learned Judge refused to pass any order on the injunction petition filed by the appellant and rejected the same with costs.

( 2 ) THE appeal is against that judgment.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal argued that the learned Trial Judge erred in law while construing the provisions of section 9 of the Code. The learned Counsel submitted that unless there is any specific statutory bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Court should have entertained the civil suit. It was also urged that, in this case, there is no such statutory bar. It was also argued that the implied bar of jurisdiction cannot be assumed rightly unless such an implication is appar






















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