DEBENDRA NATH CHOWDHURY Vs. SOUTHERAN BANK LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1960-2-25
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 26,1960

DEBENDRA NATH CHOWDHURY Appellant
VERSUS
SOUTHERAN BANK LTD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALLA RAM V. BIBEE CHOWLAIM [REFERRED TO]
SREE NATH ROY V. CALLY DOSS GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
RANGAYYA V. NANJAPPA RAO [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ MORARJI V. RANCHORDAS DHARSEY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMMAL V. SOUNDARARAJA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
LAND MORTGAGE BANK V. SUDURUDEEN AHMED [REFERRED TO]
SM. BIMAL KUMARI V. ASOKE MITRA [REFERRED TO]
PROBODH KUMAR V. DANTMARA TEA CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SM. KHATUN BIBI V. SM. LILABATI DASSI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR SINGH V. MANAGING COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA SUGAR MILLS V. SARDAR SUNDAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VALLIAPPA CHETTIAR V. GOBINDA DAS [REFERRED TO]
GOCULDAS V. CHHAGGULAL [REFERRED TO]
SHARALI MRIDHA V. TORAPALI [REFERRED TO]
MOOLJI JAITHA V. KHANDESH SPINNING [REFERRED TO]
SHIB KUMAR BANERJEE VS. RASUL BUX [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA PROBIRENDRA MOHUN TAGORE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHAWNA SETH VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
PANTALOON RETAIL INDIA LTD VS. DLF LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM MOHIUDDIN VS. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [LAWS(CAL)-1978-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. BENOY KUMAR [LAWS(CAL)-1984-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJMOHANLAL RATHI VS. GITA DEVI RATHI [LAWS(CAL)-1990-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
A S OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ISWAR CHINTA HARAN SHIV THAKUR [LAWS(CAL)-1994-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL KUMAR GHATAK VS. S N ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1994-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
JOYDEEP MAJUMDER VS. SHANTI KUMAR SURANA [LAWS(CAL)-2005-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
HAZRA MEDICAL STORES PRIVET LTD VS. BISWANATH SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2006-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. GANESH KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILJA AGARWAL VS. SHREEKANT SOMANY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-107] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH VS. NEETU DHARAMVEER BHATIA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED VS. MODERN INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
GLOSTER LIMITED VS. BOWREAH JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
ADCON ELECTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DAULAT [LAWS(SC)-2001-9-117] [REFERRED]
EXCEL DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD VS. EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT. LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD VS. NARENDRA GORANI [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. SHARMA VS. SH TEK CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-494] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL SAWHNEY VS. JOGINDER SAWHNEY [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
CINDRELLA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TREND BAGS AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIMA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CREATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
SUMER BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. NARENDRA GORANI [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
NIRALA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIRCULAR INVESTMENT TRUST PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1992-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASHANKAR PODDAR VS. PRABHAT KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-1990-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA ASSOCIATION BUILDING TRUST VS. DEBA PROSAD ROY & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA GORANI VS. NARENDRA GORANI [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-319] [REFERRED]
MAGMA LEASING LIMITED VS. TONGANAGAON TEA CO. PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2003-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTHA VS. MANICKAM @ THANDAPANI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT NAIN VS. BENGAL SILVER SPRING PROJECTS LTD. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VIKASH METAL & POWER LTD VS. M/S. NIRANJAN HI [LAWS(CAL)-2011-5-159] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)COURTS in India have been laboriously cultivating "land" in the field of Clause 12 of the letters Patent of the Chartered High Courts. Long and deep are the judicial furrows. Rich is the harvest. No judicial Ricardo has been able to discover any law of diminishing return in this area. The crop of judicial decisions is abundant and varied to suit every legal taste. In this appeal some examination of this harvest is inevitable before a decision can be reached.
(2.)THE simple question in this appeal is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract is a "suit for land" when the subject-matter of the contract is 'land'. On the soil of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this High Court, this simple question, however, has many complicated traditions.
(3.)THIS is an appeal from the judgment of G. K. Mitter, J. , dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a sub-lease of fire-clay lands in Santhal Parganas outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff claims jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant, a Limited Company, has its registered office and carries on business at 24, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, within the original jurisdiction of this Court. The specific prayers in the plaint is for a decree directing the defendant to execute and register the sub-lease, and in default, directing the Registrar of this Court to execute the sub-lease on behalf of the defendant. No other reliefs are claimed except damages. No possession of the lands is claimed in this suit.
;


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