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

1911 Supreme(Cal) 333

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Haran Chandra Pal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan Banikhya & Ors. - Respondent
Reference No. 3A of 1910
Decided On : 05-06-1911

Headnote:

Dispossession - Eviction - Sections 14, 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The court held that the dispossession of the occupant was in due course of law under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the dispossession of an occupant from public premises.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dispossession was in due course of law.

Issues: Whether the dispossession of the occupant was in due course of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Sections 14 and 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which govern the lawful eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises.

Final Decision: The court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling that the dispossession was in due course of law.

JUDGMENT

1. We answer the question put to us in this reference in the affirmative, namely, that in this particular case dispossession was in due course of law. We make no order as to costs.

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 Back to top