MOHAMMED FELUMEAH Vs. S MONDAL
LAWS(CAL)-1960-1-18
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 04,1960

MOHAMMED FELUMEAH Appellant
VERSUS
S MONDAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DE SOUZA V. COLES [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICES OF PEACE FOR CALCUTTA V. THE ORIENTAL GAS CO. [REFERRED TO]
TULJARAM V. ALAGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SRI SRI ISHWAR SHYAM CHAND JIU V. RAM KANAI [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA SUNDARI V. HARAN CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
MUSTT. BRIJ COOMARI V. RAMRICK DAS [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. V. CHIEF REVENUE AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
MURALIDHAR CHAMARIA V. M. R. DALMIA [REFERRED TO]
JOY TALL AND CO. V. GOPIRAM BHOTICA [REFERRED TO]
GOUR MOHAN MALLICK V. NAYAN MANJURI [REFERRED TO]
BRAJO GOPAL V. AMAR CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDI CHARAN V. JNANENDRA [REFERRED TO]
BUDHULAL V. CHATTU GOPE [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA NATH ROY V. BROJENDRA NATH DAS [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN,BUDGE BUDGE MUNICIPALITY V. MANGRU MIA [REFERRED TO]
DAYABHAI,IN RE. V. MURUGUPPA,CHETTIAN [REFERRED TO]
ASRUMATI V. KUMAR RUPENDRA DEB RAIKAIT [REFERRED TO]
HEYMAN V. DARWIN'S LTD. [REFERRED TO]
EVANS V. BART LAM [REFERRED TO]
CHARLES OSENTON AND CO. V. JOHNSTON [REFERRED TO]
SERAJUDDIN AND CO. V. MICHAEL GOLODETZ [REFERRED TO]
SEVAK JEVANCHAND V. DAKORE TEMPLE COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH UPADHYAY V. AMARENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
P. K. P. V. E. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTYAR V. N. A. CHETTYAR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
LEA BADIN V. UPENDRA MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
SARAJU PRASHAD SINGH VS. GANGAPROSAD SHAH [REFERRED TO]
SHORAB MERWANJI MODI VS. MANSATA FILM DISTRIBUTORS [REFERRED TO]
GOPIRAM AGARWALLA VS. FIRST ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
SITAL DIN VS. ANNANT RAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BEGUM AFTAB ZAMANI VS. LAL CHAND KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-1968-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
NIKO RESOURCES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORP [LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-116] [REFERRED]
LAXMINARAYAN TAMKORWALLA VS. UDAIRAM KHEMKA [LAWS(CAL)-1960-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD VS. MULCHAND GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SCREW AND WIRE PRODUCTS LTD VS. SYNDICATE BANK LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1970-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAWATMAL BHAIRUDAN VS. RAJPUTANA TRADING CO PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1971-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI DAYAWAHLA AND SONS PRIVATE LTD VS. INVEST IMPORT [LAWS(CAL)-1968-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTARANJAN MONDAL VS. SANKAR PROSAD SAHANI [LAWS(CAL)-1972-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
NURUL HODA VS. AMIR HASAN [LAWS(CAL)-1972-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
JALPAIGURI CINEMA CO LTD VS. PROMOTHA NATH MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1974-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB SOAP WORKS VS. HINDUSTHAN LIVER LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1961-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
T S B K SHRAMAN MAHARAJ VS. MAYAPUR SRICHAITANYA MATH [LAWS(CAL)-1984-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAMBODA EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATION VS. ACME TELE POWER PVT LTD [LAWS(UTN)-2010-3-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)-THIS appeal is directed against an order of our learned brother Sinha, J. , modifying an ad interim injunction issued by Bose, J. , when issuing a Rule Nisi (Civil Rule No. 858 of 1959) for certain writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, etc. , specified therein. The appellant before us was the petitioner in the aforesaid Rule and he obtained the same, calling upon the respondents to show cause why the writs aforesaid should not issue and, pending the hearing of the Rule, he also obtained an ad interim injunction, restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 from, inter alia, granting any license to respondent No. 5 (for his cinema) on C. S. Plot No. 5971, pending the disposal of the Rule.
(2.)TO the aforesaid Rule affidavits-in-opposition were filed by ' respondents Nos. , 2 and 8 and respondent No. 4 on May 23 and June 4, 11959. respectively, and two affidavits -in -reply were also filed by and/or cm behalf of the appellant on June 29, and July , 11959. In the meantime, on June , 95s, respondent No. 5 had applied for vacating the interim order of injunction and, to that application, there was an affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the appellant on June 8, 1959. and, to that, again, there was a reply by and on behalf of the applicant, respondent No. 5, on June 19. 1959.
(3.)THE above application was, eventually, allowed in part by Sinha, J. , and he varied and modified the interim injunction, issued by Bose, J. , by directing that the said injunction would be "dissolved excepting this that no permanent license shall be granted to opposite party No. 5 until the disposal of the Rule but a temporary license may be granted" and excepting further that "the status quo" should "be maintained with regard to the constructions, that is to say, there will be no further construction either with regard to the cinema or with regard to the mosque till the disposal of the Rule. " Sinha, J. , further directed that the necessary or the usual affidavits should be completed within three weeks and he also gave the parties express "liberty to mention for an early date of hearing" of the Rule. Against the above modification, or. more precisely, against the permission, given by Sinha, J. , as aforesaid for grant of "temporary license", the present appeal has been from the petitioner-appellant and he seeks restoration of the original interim order of Bose, J. , in that behalf.
;


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