SISIR KUMAR DUTTA Vs. SUSIL KUMAR DUTTA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-6-6
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 29,1960

SISIR KUMAR DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
SUSIL KUMAR DUTTA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MINISTER OF HEALTH V. BELLOTTI [REFERRED TO]
BHRAMAR LAL V. NANDA LAL [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR V. SAILABASINI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MT. BARKATUNNISSA BEGUM V. MT. KANIZA FATIMA [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN NANAJI V. RAJESHWAR KRISHNAJI [REFERRED TO]
MARTANDRAO TATYAJI V. TARABAI [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZ MD FATEH NASIB VS. HAJI ABDUR RUB [REFERRED TO]
CHANDI CHARAN DAS VS. SUSHILABALA DASI [REFERRED TO]
PRABIRENDRA NATH NANDAY VS. NARENDRA NATH NANDAY [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRA KUMAR DUTTA VS. CHARU CHANDRA DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
MANIK CHAND MONDAL VS. SUDHIR KUMAR MONDAL [REFERRED TO]
NIDUGONDA RUDRAMANI VS. CHADUVULA SRISAILAM [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL MANILAL VS. CHANDULAL CHHOTALAL [REFERRED TO]
MANIKKAM PILLAI V. NAGASAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
SRI THAKUR SITARAMJI MAHARAJ BRIJMAN MANDIR, THROUGH SETH LAKHMI KUMAR VS. RAGHUNATH DAS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TEJ BHAN KHANNA VS. GHIAS ALI [LAWS(DLH)-1966-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. GIRDHARI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1971-11-24] [REFERRED]
ASHOK CHAUDHARY VS. INDERJIT SANDHU [LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-69] [REFERRED]
RAVINDER TYAGI VS. ANAND SWAROOP TYAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR TALKIES BARODA VS. YOGESHKUMAR AMBALAL THAKKAR [LAWS(GJH)-1975-8-15] [REFERRED]
MAHESHPUR TEA AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MANTALA TEA COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(GAU)-2001-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
AMRITALAL CHATTERJEE VS. HIRALAL CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1966-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
TARAMONI CHAKRABORTY VS. MD ALI HAIDER [LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJIT BEHERA VS. BHAJA MEHER [LAWS(ORI)-1968-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR ROYCHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI GATE SERVICE PRIVATE LTD VS. CALTEX INDIA LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1962-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA GHOSE VS. BASANT KUMAR BOSE [LAWS(PAT)-1963-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. SOHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHIRAM RAMDAS VS. VIDYUT CABLE AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES [LAWS(BOM)-1963-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH SEVERANCE VS. BENNY MATHEW [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
ASPINWALL AND CO LTD VS. SOUDAMINI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1974-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
E P GEORGE VS. THOMAS JOHN [LAWS(KER)-1983-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
TH MILKA SINGH VS. TH DINA [LAWS(J&K)-1964-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
POORAN CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. MALIK MUKHBAIN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1962-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
AMRITALAL CHATTERJEE VS. HARALAL CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1965-3-35] [REFERRED]
SARUP SINGH MAN VS. DARYODHAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1969-5-28] [REFERRED]
JITEN DAS VS. MATIARY VIVEKANANDA SHIKSHALAY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-6-33] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Banerjee, J. - (1.)This is a reference to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1 Ch. II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination by the Special Bench is:
"What is the proper valuation of a suit for ejectment of a licensee upon revocation or termination of his licence for purposes of (1) Court-fees and (2) jurisdiction? Is there any difference in the matter between a case of revocation of licence and a case of termination as distinguished from revocation of licence?"

(2.)Facts, in so far as they are material for determination of this reference, lie within a short compass and are hereinbelow stated.
(3.)The plaintiffs, who are the petitioners, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant opposite party, whom they described as a licensee, on the ground that the licence in favour of the defendant had been revoked. There were also certain other reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, for example, mesne profits, but with those other reliefs I am not concerned at this stage. The relief, in so far as ejectment was concerned, was valued at Rs. 100/-, which according to the plaintiffs was the value of the said relief, and Court-fee was paid accordingly.
;


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