Disposed

Janhit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamala Naskar and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Jan 2023FMA/1039/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta admitted the appeal and connected application, directing expeditious disposal of the Order 39 Rule 1 application within eight weeks and setting a decree deadline of March 31, 2024, due to serious title disputes.

What did the court decide?

Appellant and connected application disposed; suit to be decreed by March 31, 2024; injunction application to be disposed within eight weeks.

Janhit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamala Naskar and Ors. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

1 13.1.2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

F.M.A. 1039 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022

¶4

Janhit Vinijya Private Limited

¶5

Vs. Smt. Kamala Naskar and Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Senapati …. For the Appellant. Mr. Devajyoti Barman Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick ….. For the Respondent no. 4. Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly … For the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

Re: CAN 1 of 2022

¶8

We formally admit the appeal.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

We are of the view that justice to the case could be done if we direct expeditious disposal of the application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the appellant/plaintiff and the suit.

¶11

Since affidavits have been exchanged, the Order 39, Rule 1 application may be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶12

S.D.

¶13

The suit may be decreed by 31^st March, 2024. We order accordingly.

¶14

We justify our above order by observing that there is a serious question to be decided with regard to

¶15

¶16

the title and contractual rights concerning the subject property. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the respondent no. 4 as the constituted attorney of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has transferred the property to it.

¶17

Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the said respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 states that his clients’ contract with the respondent/defendant no. 4 as the developer/constituted attorney has long been cancelled and that the appellant/plaintiff has derived no title from any alleged transaction with the respondent no. 4.

¶18

We direct that any disposition or dealing with the above property after filing of the suit would abide by the result of the injunction application or the decree to be passed in the suit.

¶19

The appeal (FMA 1039 of 2022) and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2022) are disposed of.

¶20

( I.P. Mukerji, J.)

¶21

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

¶22

Janhit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamala Naskar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janhit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamala Naskar and Ors.

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

Sk. Riyajul Vs Sk. Jiyabul

Shabana Khatoon Vs State of West Bengal

Mina Laha Vs Ganesh Santra and Ors.

Manas Bose Vs the State of West Bengal & Ors.

Shubham Surana Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Shubham Surana Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.