John Gregory Apcar and anr. Vs. Thomas Malcom and ors.

John Gregory Apcar and anr. vs Thomas Malcom and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 09, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1164002

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/1164002
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Arijit Banerjee
Decided On: Sep 09, 2014
Subject: Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue: Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

John Gregory Apcar and anr.

Respondent

Thomas Malcom and ors.

Excerpt

.....advocate for the official trustee the court :- both these applications being ga1505of 2013 and ga1664of 2013 have been filed by one stefano george sarkies claiming divers.reliefs including that he is a baptized armenian. the armenian church authority disputed his claim and ascertained from primate, bishop haizoum najarian diocese of the armenian church of australia and newzeland that the certificate of baptism of the armenian church produced by the said mr.sarkies is a forgery. on that basis the armenian church authority filed an application under section 340 of the code of criminal procedure which was allowed by i.p.mukerji, j. by his lordship’s order dated 7th may, 2014. on an earlier occasion when these two applications were called on for hearing mr.bachawat, learned senior counsel produced a copy of a letter written by mr.pallav samajdar, advocate to mr.bachwat’s learned advocate on record informing that he had no further instruction to appear on behalf of the applicant in the said two applications. i had directed mr.bachwat’s learned advocate on record to serve another notice on mr.samajdar, advocate which was done. on the next occasion, mrs.noelle banerjee appeared for the applicants but sought time to take instructions in the matter. today mrs.noelle banerjee appears on behalf of mr.sarkies, the applicant and states that she has no instructions in the matter. in that view of the matter both the applications taken out by mr.sarkies stands dismissed without any order as to costs. affidavit in opposition of the armenian church authority in ga1664of 2013 filed today in court be kept on record. (arijit banerjee, j.) anc.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Present : The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee 09.09.2014 GA1505of 2013 Suit No.413 of 1888 John Gregory APCAR & Anr.

versus Thomas MalCo.& ORS.GA1664of 2013 Suit No.413 of 1888 John Gregory APCAR & Anr.

versus Thomas MalCo.& ORS.MRS.Noelle Banerjee, Advocate with Mr.A.S.Molla, Advocate for the petitioners/applicants Mr.Ranjan Bachwat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjoy Ginodia, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharjee, Advocate Ms.Pubali Sinha Chowdhury, Advocate for the respondents Mr.Indranil Nandi, Advocate with Mr.D.P.Samanta, Advocate for the Official Trustee The Court :- Both these applications being GA1505of 2013 and GA1664of 2013 have been filed by one Stefano George Sarkies claiming diveRs.reliefs including that he is a baptized Armenian.

The Armenian Church Authority disputed his claim and ascertained from Primate, Bishop Haizoum Najarian Diocese of the Armenian Church of Australia and Newzeland that the Certificate of Baptism of the Armenian Church produced by the said Mr.Sarkies is a forgery.

On that basis the Armenian Church Authority filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed by I.P.Mukerji, J.

by His Lordship’s order dated 7th May, 2014.

On an earlier occasion when these two applications were called on for hearing Mr.Bachawat, learned senior counsel produced a copy of a letter written by Mr.Pallav Samajdar, Advocate to Mr.Bachwat’s learned Advocate on record informing that he had no further instruction to appear on behalf of the applicant in the said two applications.

I had directed Mr.Bachwat’s learned Advocate on record to serve another notice on Mr.Samajdar, Advocate which was done.

On the next occasion, MRS.Noelle Banerjee appeared for the applicants but sought time to take instructions in the matter.

Today MRS.Noelle Banerjee appears on behalf of Mr.Sarkies, the applicant and states that she has no instructions in the matter.

In that view of the matter both the applications taken out by Mr.Sarkies stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

Affidavit in opposition of the Armenian Church Authority in GA1664of 2013 filed today in Court be kept on record.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) ANC.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties John Gregory Apcar and anr. vs Thomas Malcom and ors. Same Subject Other Taxes Same Judge Arijit Banerjee