Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.97 seconds)
Smt. Hasi Dasgupta And Others vs Mrs. Sankari Banerjee And Others on 19 August, 2019 cites

Mono Ranjan Dasgupta vs Suchitra Ganguly And Ors. on 19 February, 1988

The judgment in Mano Ranjan has to be appreciated in the context in which the court refused to give the plaintiff any benefit under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 despite noticing that such a situation may otherwise be covered by at least two of the illustrations under such provision. In Mano Ranjan, the notice to quit issued under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1956 was said to have been refused to be accepted by the defendant and it was such postal endorsement which was under challenge. It appears that a second notice was sought to be sent by the plaintiff which was returned with the postal endorsement signifying that the door always remained closed and, as such, service could not be effected. The plaintiff in that case claimed that the second endorsement was false. It was in such circumstances that the court in Mano Ranjan declined to afford to the plaintiff the benefit under Section 114 of the Evidence Act since the plaintiff, in the same breath, alleged that one of the two postal endorsements was false and the other was correct.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Rupeswari Debi vs Lokenath Hosiery Mills on 31 August, 1961

On the ground of default, a Single Bench judgment of this court reported at 66 CWN 414 (Rupeswari Debi v. Lokenath Hosiery Mills) has been placed for the enunciation of law therein at page 418 of the report while dealing with the 8 ground of default in that case. It appears that out of seven chalans only five had been deposited and marked as exhibits and there was no explanation why the two other money order coupons had not been brought before the court. However, on facts, the court found that it was for the plaintiff to demonstrate that there was default on the part of the defendant in paying or depositing rent which the plaintiffs had failed to do in that case. The passage from the report that has been relied upon deals with the facts peculiar to that case and there does not appear to be any general enunciation of law that can be culled out therefrom to be applied to the facts of the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next