REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAGADISH CHANDRA SIKDAR Appellant

V/S

SM. SANTIMOYEE CHOUDHURI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SAILENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE V. RAMSUNDER GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
NORTON V. ELLAN [REFERRED TO]
RILEY V. HOLLAND (WILLIAM) AND SONS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SUBBA NARAYANA VATHIYAR V. RAMASWAMI AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
GOPEE KISTO COSSAMEE V. NIL COMUL BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL V. SURAJMAL [REFERRED TO]
PUTTAPPA V. VIRABHADRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN CHETTIYAR V. GOPALACHARI [REFERRED TO]
GOPIKISAN SHEONARAIN V. JEETMAL GOVARDHANDAS [REFERRED TO]
GHANIA LAL V. KARAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
GOKUL DASS V. NATHU [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPAK LAL MOHAN LAL V. NECTAR TEA CO. [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT V. SOPANA [REFERRED TO]
BANSILAL ABIRCHAND V. GHULAM MAHBUB KHAN [REFERRED TO]
DALSUKH NATHMAL FINN KAMPTEE V. MOTILAL BALCHAND [REFERRED TO]
JIVATLAL PURTAPSHI V. LALBHAI FULCHAND [REFERRED TO]
PIYARA SINGH V. BHAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
SAILUM ESHWARAYYA V. DEVI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHALUXMI BANK LTD VS. CHOTANAGPUR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
BORAKAR ENG AND FOUNDRY WORKS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. M THOMMAIA FERUANDO [REFERRED TO]
BHARUMAL UDHOMAL VS. SAKHAWATMAL VESHOMAL [REFERRED TO]
SM TUSLIMAN BIBI VS. ABDUL LATIF MIA [REFERRED TO]
SRILAL SINGHANIA VS. ANANT LAL MONDAL [REFERRED TO]
KOKA AUDINARAYANA RAO NAIDU VS. BHAVARAJU LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SONIRAM JEETMULL VS. R. D. TATA AND COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against an order passed by the Third Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, deciding an issue as to territorial jurisdiction of the Court against the defendant

(2.) The defendant, Jagdish Chandra Sikdar and his sister Nanibala Kundu used to carry on business in partnership at Cuttack, under the name and style of Messrs. Graduate Friends. Jagdish Chandra's daughter was married to the plaintiffs son. Dispute arose between the parties above named, inter alia, over certain sums of money payable to the plaintiff out of the partnership business. The disputes were referred to arbitration and under the Award the plaintiff became entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of principal and interest.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant Jagdish Chandra Sikdar executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 2300/- in favour of the plaintiff, on October 1, 1936. The said promissory note, the plaintiff alleged, was executed in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The defendant did not pay the amount due under the promissory note and thereupon the plaintiff, Santimoyee Devi, instituted a suit in the City Civil Court against him claiming a sum of Rs. 3012-5-9, inclusive of principal and interest due on the promissory note. The defendant contested the suit and his defence, inter alia, was:-

Click here to view full judgment.

JAGADISH CHANDRA SIKDAR Vs. SANTIMOYEE CHOUDHURI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address