The High Court disposed of the revisional application as not pressed, with counsel withdrawing the challenge to the impugned order and seeking release of premises before the Trial Court instead.
Application disposed of as not pressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 32 Item 32 ssi 10.12. 2020
C.R.R. 1730 of 2020
(via video conference)
In the matter of :- Shri Anurup Roy & anr.
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Triptimoy Talukder Mr. Arun Kumar Das ….for the petitioners
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence, instead of making an application for release of the premises belonging to the petitioners before the learned trial Court, the present application has been preferred challenging the order taking custody of several seized movable and immovable properties. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as such, the petitioners would not like to press this application and would instead pray for release of their premises before the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, the revisional application is disposed of as not pressed.
2
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
Anurup Roy & anr.
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
