Allowed

Dipak Day v. LIC of India

Calcutta HC28 Jun 2023CO/1291/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Article 227 to substitute the deceased petitioner with his widow after the eviction was effected. The Court directed the return of the security deposit with accrued interest to the widow and disposed of the revisional application as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to substitute the petitioner; Return of deposited sum with interest directed; Revisional application disposed of without cost.

Dipak Day Vs LIC of India — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

28.6.2023 ct. 236

¶2

sk,sl. 7.

¶3

C.O. 1291 of 2014

¶4

CAN 3/2017(Old CAN/11002/2017),CAN/4/2023

¶5

Dipak Day -vsLIC of India

¶6

Mr. Sannidhya Dutta …for petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta ….for the LICI.

¶8

Heard Mr. Sannidhya Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta, learned counsel representing the opposite party, LICI.

¶9

It is submitted by Mr. Dutta that Dipak Day since deceased filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment passed by the learned Judge, 6^th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 2009, affirming the order of eviction passed by Estate Officer, L.I.C.I. on 18.11.2009.

¶10

On 4^th May, 2021 Dipak Day died and after his death, the widow moved to an alternative accommodation and parted with possession of the property in suit in favour of LICI. Admittedly, the possession of the property is now with LICI.

¶11

It is further contended that as a condition for having an order of stay, the petitioner, Dipak Day had to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,40,520/-.

¶12

¶13

My attention is drawn to the ordered dated 14^th November, 2014 wherein direction was given upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,40,520/- with the Registrar General of the High Court, Calcutta and the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta was directed to invest the said amount in short term fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank with option to renew the same from time to time. Though, the revisional application has become bereft of merit consequent upon surrendering of possession, yet the applicant Ms. Banani Day is required to be brought into record so that she can take back the money deposited by her husband, pursuant to the direction dated 14^th November, 2014.

¶14

Considering as such, I am inclined to allow the application to substitute Smt. Banani Day as petitioner instead of and place of Dipak Day. Department is directed to amend the cause title.

¶15

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta is directed to take necessary steps to return the money deposited pursuant to the order dated 14^th November, 2014 together with accrued interest in favour of Ms. Banani Day the widow of Sri Dipak Day after being satisfied about the identity of the substituted petitioner.

¶16

Since the revisional application, as I have pointed out has become “infructuous”, the same is disposed of, however, without any cost.

¶17

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J)

Dipak Day v. LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Day v. LIC of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bina Ghosh Vs Md. Fakir Mondal

Dilip Santra Vs Debabrata Sharma

Ajit Mondal Vs Sridam Mondal

Bina Tiwary Vs Dr Mrs Nira Chatterjee

Ashoke Kumar Adhya @ Ashoke Adhya & Ors. Vs Subhra Malik & Anr.

Shampa Acharyya Vs Malay Acharya