SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Cal) 288

D.K.SETH
SALIM MAKKAR – Appellant
Versus
N. K. PANSARI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.SHOME

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner have filed C. S. No. 108 of 2001 as plaintiff against N. K. Pansari and others for certain reliefs. The plaint case inter alia, was that the plaintiff is the lessee of premises No. 25, Black Burn Lane, Calcutta for a period of 99 years through a registered deed of lease dated 5th December, 1984 obtained from Miss. Lily Tweena and Mrs. Rosalind Jacob who were possessing the said premises adversely and as of right for more than 12 years. Having returned from Dubai on 9th February, 2001 he found construction being carried on in the said premises. On enquiry he came to learn that the defendant No. 1, N,. K. Pansari had been making construction. In connection with the said suit an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 wherein the defendant No. 1 had disclosed the fact that such construction is being made on the basis of a plan sanctioned sometimes back since been revalidated in 1997. Since the relief with regard to the revalidation of the said plan could not be had in the suit and that the Corporation was not a party to it, therefore, the writ petition has since been filed in which an interim order is obtained from this Co















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top