Urmila Gupta and ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar Gupta and ors.

Urmila Gupta and ors. vs Krishna Kumar Gupta and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 05, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1100282

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1100282
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: I. P. Mukerji
Decided On: Dec 05, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Urmila Gupta and ors.

Respondent

Krishna Kumar Gupta and ors.

Excerpt

.....restraining the bank from selling or otherwise dealing with the beliaghata property, on the ground that this property was jointly owned, also, by the petitioners.the bank, as it appears.had started proceedings against the respondents in the said tribunal where that property became involved. according to the petitioners.the bank had induced them to withdraw their application before the debts recovery tribunal on the representation that no step would be taken against the beliaghata property and only the kestopur property would be sold out. on that basis an agreement had entered into between the respondents and the bank, of which the petitioners became the beneficiaries, as stated above. therefore, their case is that the bank is estopped from selling the beliaghata property. a prima facie case is, no doubt, made out. let notice of this application be given to the bank. list this application on 10th december, 2013. i order stay of sale of the beliaghata property till 23rd december, 2013 or until further order whichever is earlier. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (i.p.mukerji, j.) sg2

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET E.C.521 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE URMILA GUPTA AND ORS.Versus KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 5th December, 2013.

Appearance: Mr.Promit Kr Ray, Bar-at-Law.

Mr.Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Rajib Mullick, Adv.… for the petitioners Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Adv.Mr.P.Deb, Adv.… for the respondents The Court: Leave was taken from this Court on 3rd December, 2013 by Mr.Ray, learned Counsel, to move this application on an urgent basis, ex parte, today.

It is, thus, appearing today as “New Chamber Application”.

It appears from the submissions made by Mr.Ray that a substantial question is raised, which has to be tried.

The question is this.

There are two properties in question; one in Kestopur and the other at Beliaghata.

Sale of the Beliaghata property is scheduled to take place tomorrow.

The petitioners are three sisteRs.The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are their brotheRs.The respondent No.4 is their mother.

The petitioners had obtained orders from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on an application, restraining the bank from selling or otherwise dealing with the Beliaghata property, on the ground that this property was jointly owned, also, by the petitioneRs.The bank, as it appeaRs.had started proceedings against the respondents in the said tribunal where that property became involved.

According to the petitioneRs.the bank had induced them to withdraw their application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the representation that no step would be taken against the Beliaghata property and only the Kestopur property would be sold out.

On that basis an agreement had entered into between the respondents and the bank, of which the petitioners became the beneficiaries, as stated above.

Therefore, their case is that the bank is estopped from selling the Beliaghata property.

A prima facie case is, no doubt, made out.

Let notice of this application be given to the bank.

List this application on 10th December, 2013.

I order stay of sale of the Beliaghata property till 23rd December, 2013 or until further order whichever is earlier.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) sg2

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Urmila Gupta and ors. vs Krishna Kumar Gupta and ors. Same Subject Education Same Judge I. P. Mukerji