Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vs. Sardarmull Kankaria

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 14, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061022

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Respondent

Sardarmull Kankaria

Excerpt

.....as claimed in terms of prayers (a).(b).(c) and (d) of the plaint. the defendant-appellant feeling itself aggrieved has come up with the present appeal and with an application for stay. pursuant learned to the leave advocate for the granted appellant on has february filed a 7, 2012, the supplementary affidavit in court today. let the same be kept with the records. mr.roy, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has drawn our attention to the fact that there is a discrepancy in the averment made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit and the annexure marked with the letter `x’ and annexed to the said supplementary affidavit. it is true that in paragraph 4 it was stated that the requisition for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was given on september 30, 2011 but the copy of the requisition which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit was for drawing up and completing the decree impugned in this appeal. mr.bose, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, is to file a corrected supplementary affidavit on the next date of hearing of this application. as prayed for by mr.roy, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, the defendants are to file affidavit-inopposition within three weeks from today. affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, is to be filed within one week thereafter. the matter is to appear in the list on march 20, 2012. there shall be an ad interim order of status quo with regard to the subject property as on the date of the passing of the judgment and order. urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (j.n.patel, cj.) (dr. sambuddha chakrabarti, j.) sn/rsg.

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET APDT No.1 of 2012 GA No.35 of 2012 CS No.30 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KOLKATA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Appellant Versus SARDARMULL KANKARIA Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE The Hon'ble JUSTICE Dr.

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :

14. h February, 2012.

For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Bose, Mr.R.K.Kali and Mr.S.Talukdar, Advocates For Respondent: Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Pramit Roy, Souvik Sen, P.

Mukherjee and A.

Banerjee, Advocates The Court : This is an application for stay of operation of the judgment and decree dated September 29, 2011, passed by the Learned Trial Judge plaintiff/respondent filed in a C.S.suit No.30 inter alia of for 2011.

a decree The of declaration as well as a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated September 3, 2001, annexed to the plaint and for other reliefs.

By Learned the judgment Trial Judge and decree directed that impugned there in would this be appeal a the decree as claimed in terms of prayers (a).(b).(c) and (d) of the plaint.

The defendant-appellant feeling itself aggrieved has come up with the present appeal and with an application for stay.

Pursuant learned to the leave Advocate for the granted appellant on has February filed a 7, 2012, the supplementary affidavit in Court today.

Let the same be kept with the records.

Mr.Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, has drawn our attention to the fact that there is a discrepancy in the averment made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit and the annexure marked with the letter `X’ and annexed to the said supplementary affidavit.

It is true that in paragraph 4 it was stated that the requisition for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was given on September 30, 2011 but the copy of the requisition which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit was for drawing up and completing the decree impugned in this appeal.

Mr.Bose, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, is to file a corrected supplementary affidavit on the next date of hearing of this application.

As prayed for by Mr.Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, the defendants are to file affidavit-inopposition within three weeks from today.

Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, is to be filed within one week thereafter.

The matter is to appear in the list on March 20, 2012.

There shall be an ad interim order of status quo with regard to the subject property as on the date of the passing of the judgment and order.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(J.N.PATEL, CJ.) (Dr.

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) SN/Rsg.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial