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

2007 Supreme(Cal) 54

PRATAP KUMAR RAY
SHARMA KAPOOR AND CO. – Appellant
Versus
DAMAYANTI MISHRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASISH SANYAL, PRADEEP KUMAR JEWRAJKA, REEMA BHATTACHARYA, SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYA, SARVESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) THE slay application, being CAN. 2437 of 2006, has been assigned before this Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by His Lordship's order dated 6th June, 2006. The stay application has been preferred by the appellant/ tenant, a partnership firm as it appears from the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal, who has suffered judgement and decree from the first appellate court reversing the judgement and decree of the trial Court. It is an admitted fact that the tenant for a longer period of more than 40 years is occupying an area of more or less 500 Sq. ft. at a rental of Rs. 55/- per month. There is no doubt about the locational and topographical condition of the area that it is in centrally located business place at Howrah within the Howrah Municipal corporation and nearby of that there is an air conditioned market. In opposing the stay application, the landlord has filed affidavit-in-opposition as well as supplementary Affidavit disclosing the prevalent rental rate of that area. In the supplementary Affidavit affirmed on 6th June, 2006 a document has been annexed issued by the Corporation Bank wherefrom it appe
















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