Disposed¶18

M/S. Sagarmall Dhanraj Rep by Sharad Kumar Baid v. Sanjib Kumar Mallick and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 May 2025CO/2034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 2034 of 2023; M/s. Sagarmall Dhanraj (HUF) v. Sanjib Kumar Mallick & Ors.; order no. 90 dated 18.04.2023 set aside; additional written statement dated 16.01.2023 taken on record; correction of Karta of HUF from Vivek Baid to Sharad Kumar Baid; Trial Court to dispose expeditiously; petition disposed of on 06.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order no. 90 dated 18th April, 2023 set aside; additional written statement dated 16th January, 2023 directed to be taken on record as per rule; petitioner directed to move an application before the learned Trial Court for correction of the name of the Karta of M/s. Sagarmall Dhanraj (HUF); Trial Court directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. ¶18

M/S. Sagarmall Dhanraj Rep by Sharad Kumar Baid Vs Sanjib Kumar Mallick and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order no. 90 dated 18th April, 2023, by which the additional written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner was not accepted during the course of submission, should be set aside and the additional written statement taken on record. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The impugned order no. 90 dated 18th April, 2023, whereby the additional written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner was not accepted, is set aside.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court for correction in the name of the Karta of M/s. Sagarmall Dhanraj, HUF.

¶16

Key takeaways

Since both parties submitted in favour of acceptance, the additional written statement dated 16th January, 2023 is to be taken on record as per rule.ratio¶17
The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition disposed of (order dated 06.05.2025, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.). The impugned order no. 90 dated 18th April, 2023, by which the additional written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner was not accepted during the course of submission, was set aside. As both sides conceded, the additional written statement dated 16th January, 2023 was directed to be taken on record as per rule. Since the amendment had inadvertently shown Mr. Vivek Baid as the Karta of M/s. Sagarmall Dhanraj (HUF) instead of the actual Karta, Mr. Sharad Kumar Baid, the petitioner was directed to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court for correction of the Karta's name. The learned Trial Court was further directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

M/S. Sagarmall Dhanraj Rep by Sharad Kumar Baid v. Sanjib Kumar Mallick and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sagarmall Dhanraj Rep by Sharad Kumar Baid v. Sanjib Kumar Mallick 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

Pinky Ray Vs Snehashis Roy

Pintu Santra Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Padmalochan Mahato and Ors. Vs Bablu Mahato and Anr.

Gunadhar Jana and Ors. Vs Santosh Mahato and Ors.

Hirak Mishra Vs Moumita Mishra (Routh)

Rohit Kumar Gupta Vs Amit Sankar Sanyal