Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Lalit Mohan Mitra And Ors. vs Samirendra Kumar Ghosh And Ors. on 13 January, 1977

Newtech Estate And Industries Private ... vs Sh. Inder Singh Oberoi And Ors. on 27 November, 2003

Similar observations were made by another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Lalit Mohan Mitra and Others Vs. Samirendra Kumar Ghosh and Others (Supra), wherein it was observed that unless the action of the defendants amounts to actionable nuisance, the plaintiff may not have a right to start the action and pray for injunction.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Kumuda Sundari Properties (Private) ... vs Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. on 25 June, 1985

8. The locus standi of the petitioner in a writ application to challenge the validity of a municipal sanction obtained by another person may not be decided only by referring to the provisions of Specific Relief Act. But such a petitioner must also establish that the sanction granted by the Municipal Authorities in favour of another infringes some legal right claimed by him. We respectfully agree with the observations of P, N. Mookerjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ. in the case of Ila Pal Chowdhury v. K. C. Dutta, (ILR (1958) 1 Cal 143) (supra), regarding the import of the decisions of this Court in Re : Lukshmi Mont Dassi, (1941)45 Cal WN 401 : (AIR 1941 Cal 3911, A.C. Mohamad v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941) 45 Cal WN 408 and Hirendra Nath Dutta v. Corporation of Calcutta, (1941) 45 Cal WN 413 : (AIR 1941 Cai 386). In all the three cases arising under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 there were clear findings that the breaches of the Municipal Rules complained of were prejudicial to the sanitation or ventilation of the neighbouring building and the relief or remedy under consideration, (sic) only the issue of mandamus.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Smt. Fatima Joao vs Village Panchayat Of Merces And Anr. on 21 July, 2000

31. A narrower view appears to have been taken in some of the decisions reported in Nandalal v. Provudayal, ; Purul Roy v. Srinibash Chowmal, ; Purushottam Lalji v. Ratan Lal AIR 1973 Cal 459 (FB); Krushna Kishore Bai v. Sankarsan Samal, (FB) and Lalit Mohan v. Samirendra Kumar, , which are in the line with the view taken by three learned single Judges of this Court in their independent judgments. It would thus appear that both the principles have their own friends.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

V. Nagarathinam vs Padmadevi And Ors. on 22 September, 2000

77. It Is contended on behalf of the defendants, on the strength of the various decisions, such as Krushna Kishore v. Sankarsan, (FB), Lalit Mohan v. Samirendra Kumar , K. Mohideen v. M. M. Abdullah, ; Kamla v. Bhanwarlal Void, ; K. Panduranga Nayak v. Jayashree, and Vasudeva Prabhu v. Madhava Prabhu, AIR 1993 Ker 68 that the plaintiff cannot claim easementary right in the disputed portion.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Sanjay Budhia Family Trust & Ors vs Tripura Enclave Residents' on 14 May, 2014

On scrutiny of the materials on record we find that the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant has sufficient merit. In fact, the object of injunction is protection of property from substantial damages. Access to first floor through the internal ladder in the ground floor which has its separate entrance cannot cause any nuisance or annoyance. No case of likelihood of future nuisance or annoyance is made out by the respondents. The act of the appellants does not appear to cause any actionable nuisance to the respondents. Therefore, in view with the decision of this Court in Lalit Mohan Mitra & Ors. vs. Samirendra Kumar Ghosh & Ors. reported in 81 CWN 870, respondents/plaintiffs is not entitled to get an order of injunction unless the appellants/defendants' act amounts to an actionable nuisance. The plaintiffs/respondents could not make out any prima facie case of actionable nuisance.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - T K Dutt - Full Document

Amalangsu Narayan Acharyya Chowdhury vs The Calcutta Municipal Corpn. And Ors. on 13 July, 1988

31. Further, in my view, it is a case where the Inspectors of the Corporation of Calcutta and Surveyors, having sanctioned the impugned plan, of their own accord, should not be allowed to rise from the slumber to find out, their own lapses to detect the mistake committed by the Plan Sanctioning Department, although there is no suppression, but they have risen on the basis of the complaint of the adjoining owner, being respondent No. 7, moreover the adjoining owner is not affected in any way by his right of passage, air, light, etc., and the Division Bench decision in Lalit Mohan Mishra's case (supra) applied with full force in this case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanat Kumar Chatterjee vs Dwijendra Chandra Bhattacharjee And ... on 28 February, 2001

18. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the absence of actual actionable nuisance the plaintiff can get a decree as prayed for. In my view, since the defendant No. 1 series proposed to make construction in accordance with sanctioned plan granted by Municipality within their land, unless the plaintiff can prove actionable nuisance he is not entitled to get any order of injunction. (See Lalit Mohan Mitra v. Samirendra Kumar Ghosh. ).
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1