Allowed

Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Mala Rani Paul and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Oct 2023MAT/388/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order directing the deposit of costs, as the primary impugned order imposing them had been stayed by a coordinate bench. The appeal against the costs order was allowed, and associated applications were disposed of as they were restricted to that issue.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing costs was set aside; the appeal against the order dated 20.02.2023 was allowed; CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2023 were disposed of.

Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs Mala Rani Paul and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

05.10.2023 SL No.12 Court No.8 (gc)

¶2

MAT 388 of 2023 CAN 1 of 2023 CAN 2 of 2023

¶3

Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Mala Rani Paul & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Sourav Kr. Mukherjee, Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Ms. Sahana Pal

¶5

…for the Appellant.

¶6

Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Ms. Soumoyadipa Kanu

¶7

…for the W.B.B.P.E. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh,

¶8

…for the State Respondents.

¶9

The appeal is directed against the order dated 20^th February, 2023 directing the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 1^st March, 2023, in default, appropriate steps would be taken against the applicant/appellant in accordance with law.

¶10

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant has brought to our notice an order of the Coordinate Bench dated 2^nd March, 2023 by which the order imposing costs in terms of the order dated 16^th January, 2023 has been stayed until further orders. It appears from the order dated 20^th February, 2023 that it was brought to the notice of the learned Single

¶11

¶12

Judge that an appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16^th January, 2023 and the said appeal is pending. Notwithstanding such submission, the learned Single Judge extended the time to deposit the costs by 1^st March, 2023.

¶13

In view of the fact that the order dated 16^th January, 2023 has been stayed and the matter was returned to the Hon’ble Single Bench for being considered on merits, the order imposing costs is set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for leave to file appeal being CAN 1 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.

¶15

No order is necessary with regard to MAT 388 of 2023 and, accordingly, stands disposed of in view of the fact that the appeal is restricted to the imposition of costs.

¶16

In view of the disposal of the appeal, the application being CAN 2 of 2023 also stands disposed of.

¶17

The certified copy filed in Court is kept with the record.

¶18

The affidavit of service is also taken on record.

¶19

¶20

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

¶22

(Uday Kumar, J.)

¶23

(Soumen Sen, J.)

Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Mala Rani Paul and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Mala Rani Paul and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Wb & Ors. Vs Piyali Sen & Ors.

Sova Rani Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tapas Das and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Roushan Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal Service through the Principal Secretary

Akash Biswas Vs the State of West Bengal Service through the Principal Secretary

Ambika Prasad Tewari Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.