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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 920

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Mangaldham Properties LLP. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Agarwal – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta
For the Respondent: Ms. Sohini Chakraborty, Mr. Arijit Sarkar

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Order dated September 29th, 2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior 2nd Division) Court Alipore, passed in T.S. No. 20521 of 2013, has been assailed in the present Application, wherein the court below has rejected defendant’s application under order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of plaint.

2. Present opposite parties filed a suit for declaration for cancellation of deeds, permanent injunction, damages and other ancillary reliefs against the petitioners being aforesaid T.S. No. 20521 of 2013. In the said suit opposite party herein claimed that they are the absolute owners of the suit property, which is still under their possession. Previously on one occasion opposite party no. 1 and 2 had to go to Hyderabad for medical treatment and on good faith the opposite parties empowered defendant no.4, Mr. Baid to look after the suit property. It is alleged in the plaint that Mr. Baid misused the trust of the opposite parties and got one power of attorney executed fraudulently and taking advantage of the same he executed and registered a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 3 on January, 5 2010, setting up defendant no. 7 as an al

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      Jagdish Singh VS Heeralal - 2013 7 Supreme 568: Treatment is unclear. The description states "In securitization matters civil court have no jurisdiction," which asserts a legal principle but contains no keywords or phrases (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed) indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. No evidence of how the case has been treated.

      Jalan Inter Continental Hotels Pvt. Ltd. VS State Bank of India - 2017 0 Supreme(Cal) 379: Treatment is unclear. The description states "The main legal principle established is the complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters falling under the SARFAESI Act, as interpreted under Section 34," which summarizes the principle from the case but contains no keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. No evidence of how the case has been treated.

      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