KANAK PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER
LAWS(CAL)-2002-6-44
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 27,2002

KANAK PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) The first mentioned application being G.A. No. 824 of 2002 has been taken out on Master's Summons dated 27th February, 2002 by the defendant, namely Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited for rejection of and/or taking the plaint of the file in the aforementioned suit and the second application being G.A. No. 927 of 2002 taken out on Master's Summons dated 1st March, 2002 by the plaintiff is for amendment of the plaint, as suggested in green ink in a copy of the plaint annexed to the petition and consequential relief. Before taking up of hearing of both the matters it was made clear to both the parties, the fate of the subsequent application would be depending upon the result of the first application, naturally, in the event the first application is dismissed, then, the second application will be allowed as a matter of course, as the nature d proposed amendment is innocuous in nature.
(2.) Mr. Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel contends in support of the demurer action, that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, as the same lacks material particulars in support of the allegation of sub-letting and/or assignment for getting relief of eviction decree. According to him the nature of the allegation is such which needs particulars with so much of sufficiency that the defendant" would understand the allegation and/or case to answer it. Unless, these particulars are there, under the law, it cannot be said that there is disclosure of causes of action. In other words, absence of material particulars in this action tantamount to non-disclosure of cause of action. In support of his allegations he has drawn reference to two English cases, one is reported in AER 1936 (1) 287 and another in AER 1874 (re-print 1874-80) 1684.
(3.) He also contends that in the event the plaint deserves to be rejected on the ground of non-disclosure of causes of action it must be done as a whole not in part thereof. He has sought reliance for this proposition on a Supreme Court decision reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487.;


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