Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 22, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1165053

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/1165053
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Girish Chandra Gupta
Decided On: Sep 22, 2014
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....another respondents before: the hon'ble justice girish chandra gupta the hon'ble justice shib sadhan sadhu date : 22nd september, 2014. for appellant : mr.d.s. mullick, advocate mr.b.n. jaiswal, advocate for respondents : ms.suparna mukherjee, advocate mr.amit chatterjee, advocate mr.goutam kumar goon, advocate the court : the subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 3rd march, 2014 by which the learned trial court has directed the commissioner of partition to effect the partition of the suit property on the basis of the report filed in court. this order that the present appeal has been filed. it is against mr.mullick submitted that the report of the commissioner is based on an advisory of the learned trial court partition and cannot by be allotting effected. rooms to there the may parties be some to the suit, substance in the the submission advanced by mr.mullick but partition by metes and bounds does not appear to be possible. we adjourned the matter earlier in order to enable mr.mullick, learned advocate for the appellant to take instruction as to the portion of the building defendant no.2 may like to take. time. which the defendant no.1 or the the matter was adjourned for a very long in spite thereof mr.mullick is not in a position to make his choice as to the portion of the property his client, the defendant no.1 or mr.jaiswal’s client, the defendant no.2 would like to take. in the circumstances there is nothing that the court can do. we have no doubt in our mind that the procedure adopted by the chartered engineer and the commissioner of partition for the purpose of effecting the partition is fair. however, attempts should be made to equalise the shares of the parties by directing payment of owelty money. with these observations the appeal is disposed of. (girish chandra gupta, j.) (shib sadhan sadhu, j.) msen

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET GA No.1231 of 2014 APO No.238 of 2014 With CS No.153 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TARUN KUMAR SAHA Appellant Versus SWAPAN KUMAR SAHA & ANOTHER Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHIB SADHAN SADHU Date : 22nd September, 2014.

For Appellant : Mr.D.S.

Mullick, Advocate Mr.B.N.

Jaiswal, ADvocate For Respondents : Ms.Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate Mr.Amit Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.Goutam Kumar Goon, Advocate The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 3rd March, 2014 by which the learned Trial Court has directed the Commissioner of Partition to effect the partition of the suit property on the basis of the report filed in Court.

this order that the present appeal has been filed.

It is against Mr.Mullick submitted that the report of the Commissioner is based on an advisory of the learned Trial Court partition and cannot by be allotting effected.

rooms to There the may parties be some to the suit, substance in the the submission advanced by Mr.Mullick but partition by metes and bounds does not appear to be possible.

We adjourned the matter earlier in order to enable Mr.Mullick, learned Advocate for the appellant to take instruction as to the portion of the building defendant No.2 may like to take.

time.

which the defendant No.1 or the The matter was adjourned for a very long In spite thereof Mr.Mullick is not in a position to make his choice as to the portion of the property his client, the defendant No.1 or Mr.Jaiswal’s client, the defendant No.2 would like to take.

In the circumstances there is nothing that the Court can do.

We have no doubt in our mind that the procedure adopted by the Chartered Engineer and the Commissioner of Partition for the purpose of effecting the partition is fair.

However, attempts should be made to equalise the shares of the parties by directing payment of owelty money.

With these observations the appeal is disposed of.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J.) msen

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Girish Chandra Gupta