CHHAYA DEBI Vs. LAHORIRAM PRASHAR
LAWS(CAL)-1963-6-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 14,1963

CHHAYA DEBI Appellant
VERSUS
LAHORIRAM PRASHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARIHAR BANERJEE V. RAM SASHI ROY [REFERRED TO]
MOBARIK ALI AHMED V. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS BASU V. SAKTIDAPADA MUKHERJEE,AN UNREPORTED DECISION OF CHAKRAVARTTI AND SINHA,JJ. IN MISC. CASE NO. 276 OF 1951 [REFERRED TO]
DHANAPATI DEVI VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR MITRA VS. TARASANKAR GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANGLAL GANGADHAR KHEMKA VS. KAPURCHAND LTD [REFERRED TO]
SM HEMANGINI DASSEE VS. SMSARNALATIKA DASSEE [REFERRED TO]
NISHA KANTO ROY CHOWDHURY VS. SMTSAROJ BASHINI GOHO [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

P.V. PATHROSE VS. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-1983-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
R. KHEMKA VS. DECCAN ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD [LAWS(APH)-1997-7-122] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J. - (1.)This is a Rule calling upon the Opposite Party, Lahoriram Prashar, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt for this Court as a result of a breach of an undertaking given by him to this Court whereby he undertook to vacate premises No.70, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Calcutta, with the expiry of the month of July, 1962.
(2.)This Rule was issued, on September 26, 1962, on the application of the petitioner decree-holder, stating that there has been a breach of the undertaking and praying that steps be taken against the Opposite Party for the contumacious conduct exhibited by him in violating the undertaking.
(3.)It appears from the process-server's report, dated November 22, 1962, that notice of the Rule was served on the Opposite Party by affixation, in his absence. That being treated as defective service, the Registrar of this Court directed fresh service of notice on the opposite party both in the ordinary way and by registered post. It appears from the report of the process-server, dated January 26, 1963, that the opposite party refused to accept the notice this time and the same had to be served by affixation. The notice sent to the opposite party by registered post also came back with the endorsement by the postal peon that the same had been refused by the addressee opposite party, on February 2, 1963.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.