Back
ARIJIT PASAYAT, H.K.SEMA
Popat And Kotecha Property – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India Staff Association – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
Judgment
Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the plaint filed by the appellant was to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’) as the suit was barred by limitation. The order passed by learned Single Judge holding that said provision was not applicable to the facts of the case was set aside.
2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:
Appellant and respondent entered into an agreement on 19th January, 1983 whereby the appellant agreed to build and develop the property owned by the respondent-Association. A detailed agreement was accordingly executed on 19th January, 1983 which, inter alia, provided for regulating relationship between the parties. Para 13 of the agreement stipulated that after construction of the entire building and issuance of final completion certificate by two Chartered Engineers the appellant shall by a notice to the respondent-Association call upon it to execute a registered lease deed in its favour or in favour of its nominee whereby a lease of the 2nd floor, 3rd floor, 4th floor, 5th floor and
None of the provided case law entries explicitly state that a case has been "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." While some entries (e.g., Raptakos Brett And Company LTD. VS Ganesh Property - 1998 7 Supreme 276)) mention that a decree "needs no interference" despite a partial bar, this indicates the upholding of a lower court decision rather than the invalidation of a precedent.
**Sopan Sukhdeo Sable VS Assistant Charity Commissioner - 2004 2 Supreme 40)**: Establishes that for Order VII Rule 11, courts must look only at the averments in the plaint without "compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions." **Saleem Bhai VS State Of Maharashtra - 2003 1 Supreme 433)**: Reinforces that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 must be decided based on the allegations in the plaint, noting that the filing of a written statement is "irrelevant and unnecessary." **N. Balakrishnan VS M. Krishnamurthy - 1998 7 Supreme 209)**: States that superior courts should not disturb a trial court's exercise of discretion regarding delays unless the decision was "wholly untenable, arbitrary or perverse." **R. D. Bhatia VS Rajinder Kaur - 1996 6 Supreme 756)**: Sets a high evidentiary standard for misconduct cases, requiring evidence that does not "admit any element of a reasonable doubt." **Raptakos Brett And Company LTD. VS Ganesh Property - 1998 7 Supreme 276)**: Holds that a decree passed in a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm needs no interference despite being "partly barred u/s. 69(2) of Partnership Act, 1932." **I. T. C. LTD. VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal - 1998 1 Supreme 90)**: Clarifies that mere allegations of money drawal without goods movement do not constitute "fraud" for the purpose of a cause of action. **V. Subba Rao VS Secretary To Govt. Panchayat Raj And Rural Development, Govt. of A. P. - 1996 2 Supreme 614)**: Interprets service rules, concluding that petitioners are governed by specific amendments (G.O.Ms. No. 589) rather than general ad hoc rules. **MR ANUJ GUGLANI vs MR HIRALAL C GUGLANI - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 230(Del) 230](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/INDDEL00000156405))**, **Jia Lal Kishori Lal Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 199 199](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01100135416))**, **Gurdeep Singh, S/o. Shri Gyan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary - 2026 0 Supreme(Raj) 29 29](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01720094006))**, **State of Odisha vs Meena Kumari @ Meena Kumari Rout - 2026 0 Supreme(Ori) 501 501](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02200040223))**, **Manjula VS D. A. Srinivas - 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 513 513](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100083454))**: These entries serve primarily as citations or references to the case *Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association*. They do not provide independent legal rulings but rather identify the case as a precedent used by the Apex Court.
None. The provided list contains either substantive legal points, procedural guidelines, or citations of the *Popat and Kotecha Property* case. While the citations are repetitive, their function as references is clear.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
