The court dismissed four writ appeals after finding the appellants' prolonged conduct precluded further instruction seeking. The precedence of an earlier decision was cited to dismiss the claim for refund of security deposits.
The appellants were directed to refund the security deposits to the respondent within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WA NO.18 of 2017 a/w WA NO.19 of 2017 a/w WA NO.20 of 2017 a/w WA NO.21 of 2017
B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present :
For the appellants : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate. Ms. A. Banik, Advocate.
29.08.2017
Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, the learned counsel for the respondent. The prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant can no longer be entertained; he had been seeking time after time to obtain instruction.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-02-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1092 of 2016 and others directing the refund of the security deposits made by the petitioners. It is stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, which cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the case is squarely covered by the earlier decision dated 03-10-2016 of WA No.25 of 2016 and others.
In view of this, these writ appeals have no merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants are directed to refund the security deposits to the respondent within a period of 2(two) months from today.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Dipesh
WA NO.18 of 2017 a/w WA NO.19 of 2017 a/w WA NO.20 of 2017 a/w WA NO.21 of 2017 Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant can still be entertained when it has been repeatedly delayed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WA No.25 of 2016 and others dated 03-10-2016Distinguished¶8
Appellants
Respondent
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
