Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Balaram Developers Pvt. Ltd.& Anr vs Maniklal Chowdhury & Ors on 18 July, 2018

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE

                            GA 1788 OF 2018
                                 WITH
                             CS 199 of 2015
                   BALARAM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.& ANR.
                                 Versus
                      MANIKLAL CHOWDHURY & ORS.


  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

Date : 18th July, 2018.

Appearance :

Mr. J. Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. D. R. Basu, Advocate Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. N. Berlia, Advocate Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Advocate Mrs. Shakuntala Mukherjee, Advocate..Receiver The Court :-This is an application upon the Joint Receivers/Special officers to refence the existing fencing area within the said property with tin shed and/or like objects. Defendants are represented.
The defendants submit that they have not damaged and/or removed the fence and they completely disowned their responsibility. However, the fact remains that the Joint Receivers in terms of the order passed by this Court on 2 22nd August, 2014 upon demarcation of the area had put up bamboo fences which from the photographs now disclosed appear to have been broken and/or damaged.
One of the Joint Receivers namely Mrs. Shakuntala Mukherjee, has prayed for her discharge.
In view of the aforesaid Mrs. Shakuntala Mukherjee is discharged and in her place and stead Mr. Prantik Gorai, Advocate, is appointed as one of the Joint Receivers. The Joint Receivers shall refence the existing fencing area with bamboo structures. The Joint Receivers shall be entitled to a remuneration of 1200 GMs each to be paid by the petitioner.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, allegations are deemed to have been denied.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) GH.