Disposed¶13

Sankar Kumar Ghosh v. Sri Adap Saha and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2024CO/2817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 2817 of 2023; revisional application; preemption proceedings; preemptor and preemptees; ad interim injunction; stay of ad interim injunction without disposing appeal; Additional District Judge Fast Track 1st Court Barrackpore North 24 Parganas; Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2023; stay application; written objections; disposed with directions to conclude appeal within a month; Shampa Sarkar, J.; February 2, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application disposed of with directions: the court of appeal below to dispose of Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2023 within a month from the next date fixed upon hearing all contesting parties; preemptor permitted to file written objections to the stay application within a week, to be served on the opposite parties/preemptees. ¶13

Sankar Kumar Ghosh Vs Sri Adap Saha and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas committed an error of law in passing an order of stay of the ad interim injunction granted by the learned trial judge, without disposing of the pending appeal. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

In the court's view, the appeal should be disposed of on its own merits; the interim stay amounted to prima facie, allowing the appeal at its inception.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the revisional application pending.

¶8

Key takeaways

This court directed the learned court of appeal below to dispose of Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2023 within a month from the next date fixed, upon hearing all the contesting parties and upon allowing the preemptor to file written objection to the application for stay filed in connection with the appeal.ratio¶9
The preemptor's written objection to the stay application shall be filed within a week from date and served upon the opposite parties/preemptees.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application CO 2817 of 2023 (disposed of February 2, 2024; Shampa Sarkar, J.). The petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas erred in law in passing an order of stay of the ad interim injunction granted by the learned trial judge in favour of the preemptor during the pendency of the preemption proceedings, without disposing of Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2023. Holding that the interim stay amounted to prima facie allowing the appeal at its inception and that the appeal should be decided on its own merits, the court found no useful purpose in keeping the revisional application pending and directed the court of appeal below to dispose of the Misc. Appeal within a month from the next date fixed, upon hearing all contesting parties, while allowing the preemptor to file written objections to the stay application within a week, to be served upon the opposite parties/preemptees. The substantive question - whether the ad interim order ought to have been granted in favour of the preemptor - was expressly left for decision in the Misc. Appeal.

Sankar Kumar Ghosh v. Sri Adap Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Kumar Ghosh v. Sri Adap Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalby Ltd. Vs Ohio Cardiology Associates Vt Ltd.

Praveen Kumar Baid HUF Rep by Its Karta Praveen Kumar Baid Vs S K Advertising and Co. Lvt Ltd.

Nks Project Private Limited and Ors. Vs M/S. Leonine Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Devarat Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ratnabali Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Dongfang Electric (India) Private Limited Vs Aristocrat International Private Limited

Supriya Das Vs Pramita Dutta