Swadha Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Nabarun Bhattacharjee & Ors on 3 December, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Swadha Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Nabarun Bhattacharjee & Ors on 3 December, 2014

Bench: Soumen Sen

ORDER
                               CS No. 390 of 2014
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction


                        SWADHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
                                     Versus
                          NABARUN BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.


    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

Date: 3rd December 2014.

Appearance:

Mr. Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate Mr. Mainak Bose, Advocate Ms. Sutapa Dutta, Advocate Mr. Amitesh P. Ray, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Chowdhury, Advocate ...for the plaintiffs.

This matter has come up in the list on mentioning by the plaintiffs. Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that there is a wrong endorsement made on 11th November 2014. On an earlier occasion, I recorded the said submission and placed this matter in the list in order to find out whether there has been a wrong endorsement since on the self same date a few other plaints were presented claiming similar reliefs.

Mr. Saha submits that the primary object of the suit is not an adjudication of title or possession of an immovable property outside the jurisdiction of this Court, but it involves declaration of certain rights relating to corporate guarantee where court is required to act in personam. Mr. Saha has relied on the following decisions:

i) A' 1960 Cal 109 [Debendra Nath Chowdhury vs. Southren Bank Limited];

ii) (2001) 7 SCC 698 [Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat & Anr.];

iii) (2010) 1 CHN 343 (Para 11) [Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. vs. Ganesh Kumar Agarwal];

iv) (2011) 4 CHN 362 [imal Kumar Parasramka vs. Rajendra Prasad Agarwalla]

v) An unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in APO No.191 of 2014 [Gloster Ltd. vs. Bowreah Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd.] delivered on August 5, 2014.

I have carefully considered the plaint. It appears that the primary object of the suit is not seeking any adjudication of a title or possession of an immovable property. In view thereof, the endorsement made on 11th November 2014 appears to be incorrect inasmuch as I find that the plaint was presented with sufficient court fees, although the original endorsement would show "with deficit court fees".

In view of the aforesaid, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is granted. The order dated 11th November 2014 being a wrong endorsement is recalled.

( SOUMEN SEN, J. ) S. Kumar A.R.(CR)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court