Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed a special leave petition and leave was granted herein.
If necessary, at the companyt of the petitioner a special messenger is to be deputed for the purpose of transfer of the records from the City Civil Court to this Court.
namely.
On or about 11th July, 1985, the respondent by its letter intimated the appellant.
On 17th March, 1987, the companyrt passed the following order The Court It appears that on 10th September, 1987, an order was passed directing transfer of the suit to this Court so that the parties companyld settle the matter in this Court.
Let there also be an order in terms of prayer b of the petition.
The order dated 10th September, 1987 is hereby recalled.
Rule nisi was issued by the High Court.
On 10th October, 1987 the High Court passed the following order The Court By companysent of the parties, this application for transfer of the suit under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent is treated as on days list and is disposed of by the following order By companysent of the parties the title suit being Title Suit No.
The said rent of Rs.151 p.m. was later enhanced from time to time and the last rent was Rs.225 p.m. On or about 21st July, 1975, the High Court at Calcutta, in Company Petition No.
On 17th February, 1988, the respondent filed an application before the learned Trial Judge in Calcutta for recalling the order of transfer dated 10.10.1987.
It is alleged and was also alleged before the High Court that the defendant No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.1988 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
Let the two suits appear in the for settlement on 17th September, 1987.
that Jayshree was amalgamated with the respondent in accordance with the scheme sanctioned by the High Court at Calcutta on 21st July, 1976.
the reasons for so doing being recorded on the proceeding of the said High Court.
It further stipulates that the reasons for so doing to be recorded on the proceedings in the High Court.
Liberty is given to the parties to make an appropriate application before the appropriate Court for such a direction.
Soli J. Sorabji, R. Mahapatra, B.P. Singh and L.P. Agarwala for the Appellant.
1088 of 1985 between Abhay Singh Surana and Jayshree Textiles Industries Ltd. and another pending in the City Civil Court are removed and transferred to this PG NO 208 Court and to be entertained and tried by this Court in its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction, the records be transferred to this Court by 16th September 1987.
on agreement of the parties to that effect.
2 in the suit in the City Civil Court, took 15 adjournments to file written statement between March 1986 to May 1987.
Thereafter, on lst December, 1985 the appellant filed a suit for eviction in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the Jayshree and the respondent herein.
The aforesaid clause has been the subJect matter of various adjudications and interpretations by the High Court.
On about 6th July, 1987, the appellant filed an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent in the High Court at Calcutta, praying for transfer of the two suits on the ground that the respondent had adopted dilatory tactics and had taken several adjournments and.
The Registrar, Original Side, shall companymunicate order to the Registrar, City Civil Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Letters Patent companytemplates two companytingencies for the High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
furthers that the original records relating to amalgamation are available in the High Court.
151 per month payable according to the English calendar month w.e.
the suits be transferred and, secondly, for the purpose of justice.
Such induction was by the predecessor in title of the present appellant.
Since the suit is being re trans ferred to the City Civil Court, this Court cannot pass any order as to the prayers made for deposit of rent.
On 25th March, 1986, the respondent filed a Title Suit No.
K. Kapoor, S. Dube, Chatterji and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Respondent.
545/86 under Order 39 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for temporary injunction restraining the appellant from disconnecting electricity in, the said premises.
1963 exclusive of electric charges.
f. 1.8.
161/76 companynected with companypany application No.
The appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
It is alleged that on or about 4th July, 1985, the appellant for the first time came to know that the said godown was in occupation of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd and, hence, a numberice to quit was issued.
2597 of 1988.
2462 of 1987.
In that view of the matter, let the suit be heard by the appropriate Court.
345 of 1986 between Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. and Abhay Singh Surana pending before the learned Judges bench in the City Civil Court and the ejectment suit being Ejectment Suit No.
70/76 filed by the Jayshree, approved the PG NO 207 scheme of amalgamation whereby the Jayshree merged in the respondent Company.
On or about 7th August, 1963 Jayshree Textiles Industries Ltd. hereinafter called the Jayshree was inducted as a tenant in respect of a godown in Calcutta on groundfloor at a monthly rent of Rs.
On 29th August, 1985, a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, read with Section l3 d of the B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter called the Act , to quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession on the last date of the following month,was issued to Jayshree.
