HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Mr. K. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Najma W/o. Ramzanali Rasekhinejad And Ors. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. confusion over identities complicates court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership disputes linked to past orders necessitate clarity. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments against possession highlight legal ambiguities. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. court emphasizes adherence to orders and jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeal underscores procedural integrity. (Para 16 , 18) |
1. This appeal is full of several mysteries. The mysterious journey begins from a confusion as to who exactly is the Appellant and continues to pose several conundrums as to who contested proceedings before the City Civil Court, who possesses the room in question, how did he come in its possession, who exactly is claiming protection from eviction of that room, etc. There are two persons: ‘K. Gupta’ and ‘Santosh Gupta’, who claim to be the Appellant. Appeal is filed in the name of ‘K. Gupta’, but ‘Santosh Gupta’ claims that he has filed it. By filing the appeal, ‘K. Gupta’ wants to protect his possession over the room in question, while ‘Santosh Gupta’ says ‘K. Gupta’ has no concern with the room, which is in his possession. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the mystery intensified
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.