Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Bina Devi Binani vs Ramesh Kumar Gupta (Since Deceased) By ... on 14 May, 2015

Syed Khawaja Moin And Another vs Md. Safi Alam on 26 August, 2025

12. Smt. Bina Devi Binani - versus - Ramesh Kumar Gupta (since deceased By Smt. Kiran Gupta, reported at (2016) 5 CHN 376 19 2025:CHC-AS:1638-DB questions raised and every defence taken in the written statement, including the issue of maintainability. Not only that, evidence was actually permitted to be led by both sides and arguments were also heard on all issues. Thereafter the court of first instance also decided all issues.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Kabita Biswas & Ors vs Sadhan Dasgupta on 13 February, 2024

13. However one fact of the present case is distinguishable from Binadevi Binani's case (supra) where the court directed the tenant to deposit arrear rent by two instalments by July, 2011 and September, 15 2011 but the tenant did not make the payment within three months from the original order on the ground that his advocate did not inform him of the order for the payment of arrear rent and he also became ill and for which he could not make the payment. In our case though defendant tenant failed to make application within the stipulated period but he had made the deposit of arrear rent within two months of extended period.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradip Kumar Mukherjee vs Binay Chowdhury & Ors on 18 May, 2023

In this context he relied upon judgments of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin 4 Debi and another reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 and another judgment of the Apex court passed in Bijay Kumar Singh & Others vs. Amit Kumar Chamariya and others being Civil Appeal no. 7849 of 2019 with Civil Appeal no. 7850 of 2019 and another judgment of this court passed in Smt. Bina Devi Binani vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2015) 3 CAL LT 384 (HC).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Prakash Saha vs Asit Baran De & Anr on 23 December, 2016

In the present case, when the defendant petitioner did not deposit the arrear rent of Rs. 26,180/-, together with the statutory rate of interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 10% per annum on account of the admitted arrear rent from January, 2013 to November, 2013, in terms of the order dated January 21, 2014 passed by the learned Court below under Section 7(1) of the Act, as held by this Court in the case of Bina Devi Benani (supra) the defence of the defendant petitioner in the eviction suit, against delivery of possession stood struck out by operation of law .
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - A K Chakraborty - Full Document

Kalithody Sahaderan Thirumulpad @ K.S. ... vs Rahul Moitra on 9 March, 2017

Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin (supra) cited by the opposite party, in the case of Bina Devi Binani vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, reported in (2015) 3 Cal LT 384 (HC) this Court held that the word "shall" used in Section 7(3) of the act of 1997 is imperative in nature. Therefore, when the petitioner did not deposit the admitted arrear rent for the moths of September, 2005 to January 2006 together with the statutory interests thereon, the learned Court below was correct to reject the application under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997. Consequently, the learned Court below committed no error of law in passing the second impugned order dated November 04, 2016 allowing the application of the opposite party under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1997.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - A K Chakraborty - Full Document

Amar Nath Gupta & Anr vs Ajit Kumar Nandi & Ors on 6 September, 2017

On the other hand, without prejudice to the contention raised with regard to the maintainability of this revisional application against the impugned orders, Mr. Ghosh appearing for the plaintiffs, (the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 of this application) submitted that even from a reading of the order dated January 19, 2012 it is clear that the hearing of the application of the defendants under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 was concluded before the learned Court below on that date and the next date was fixed by the learned Court below on February 07, 2012 only to pass the order in the said application. Therefore, according Mr. Ghosh, the case sought to be made out by the defendants in the two successive applications, the first praying for an order not to give effect to the said order dated February 07, 2012 for a period of four weeks and the second one praying for, recalling of the order dated February 07, 2012 were rightly rejected by the learned Court below and the defendants did not assail any of the said orders dated February 07, 2012, March 07, 2012 and September 18, 2012 before this Court. He further submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Bina Debi Binani vs. Ramesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2015) 3 Cal LT 384 (HC), the expression "shall" appearing in Section 7(3) of the Act of 1997 is imperative in nature and when the defendants did not pay of the arrear rent, together with the statutory interest amounting to Rs. 7 83,490/- fixed by the learned Court below under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1997 even within the extended time till April 04, 2012, the defence of the defendants in the suit against delivery of possession stood automatically struck out and the learned Court below committed no error of law in passing the order dated September 05, 2014 allowing the plaintiffs' application under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1997. It was argued for the plaintiffs that when the order dated February 07, 2012 as modified by the order dated March 07, 2012 had attained finality and the learned Court below also passed the order dated September 05, 2014 the defendants motivatedly and with the sole intention to delay the hearing of the suit filed the another application under Section 151 of the Code for recalling of the order dated February 07, 2012 and September 05, 2014 and the said application was rightly rejected by the learned Court below. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that no argument was made by the defendants to assail the order dated September 05, 2014 and July 08, 2015 passed by the learned Court below. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that in the present case, the conduct of the defendants petitioners lacked bona fide and this Court should dismiss the revisional application with exemplary cost.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Chakraborty - Full Document

Sri Nanda Kishore Prosad vs Raj Kumar Ram on 24 May, 2019

In the case of Bina Devi Benani (supra) this Court, following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin, has held that the word "shall" used in Section 7 (3) of the Act is imperative in nature. Therefore, in the absence of any provision for extension of time to deposit the arrear rent directed to be paid by the Court under Section 7(1) of the Act, with the default on the pan of the defendant tenant to pay such arrear rent together with the statutory rate of interest within the time 9 stipulated by the order passed by the Court, a right accrues in favour of the plaintiff landlord under Section 7(3) of the Act for striking out of the defence of the defendant tenant against delivery of possession and the Court has no discretion but to pass an order directing striking out of the defence of the defendant tenant against delivery of possession."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document
1   2 Next