BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Puspa Dey – Appellant
Versus
Sukanta Dey – Respondent
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—Judgement and order of remand passed on 7th October, 2015 in Title Appeal No.15 of 2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barasat is under challenge in the instant appeal at the instance of the defendants of Title Suit No.193 of 2008.
2. Predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants/appellants in the 1st Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barasat which was registered as Title Suit No.193 of 2008.
3. Subject matter of the suit was “a piece and parcel of land measuring 06 decimal or 3 cotta 10 chittacks 8 sq. Ft appertain to Dag No.66 of Khatian No.129 corresponding to L.R Khatian No.895, 556, 960, 934, 20 and 594 in mouja Atghara; J.L No.10, P.S Rajarhat, Dist North 24 Parganas being under Ward No.6 in Rajarhat- Gopalpur Municipality.”
4. The appellants contested the suit by filing written statement and counter claim against the respondents.
5. Subject matter of the counter claim was—
“All the piece and parcel of land measuring 0.0
Rajkumar Gurawara (dead) through Lrs vs. S.K Sarwagi and Company Pvt. Ltd and Another
Aktar Hossain vs. Susama Rani Sahoo
Pankaja and Another vs. Yellappa (Dead) by Lrs and Others
Ragu Thilak D. John vs S.Rayappan & Others
M/s. South Konkan Distilleries vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors.
Amit Kr. Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon
Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (p) Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.