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

2000 Supreme(Cal) 208

Satya Brata Sinha, MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI, Barin Ghosh
Ranjit Kumar Dey – Appellant
Versus
Dipti Rani Guchait – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Banerjee for the petitioner;
Naba Kumar Das for the opposite party.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. : The question with which this Bench has been called upon to answer in the reference is as to whether the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, applies in a proceeding under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. A learned single Judge of this court by an order dated 17.6.98 passed in C.O. No. 2762 of 1995, C.O. No. 2766 of 1995 and C.O. No. 299 of 1996 noticed that two decisions of this court reported in AIR 1982 Cal 6 (Chandra Sekhar Sarkar vs. Baidyanath Ghosh) and 1997 (1) CLJ 289 (Sm. Karuna Sardar vs. Gopal Sardar), wherein it has been held that section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to such a proceeding being in conflict with a decision of another learned single Judge in Minor Subir Ranjan Mandal vs. Sitanath Mukherjee, reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 106.

2. It now appears that in view of the aforementioned conflicting decision the matter had been considered in depth by a Division Bench of this court in Serish Maji vs. Nishit Kumar Dolui, reported in 1999 (1) CHN 365 upon a reference having been made in that regard and the Division Bench agreed with the decision of Chatterjee, J, in Minor Subir Ranjan Mandal vs. Sitanath Mukherjee, report








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