Sagarmal Agarwalla vs Smt. Annapurna Neogi on 30 November, 1962
Equivalent citations: AIR1964PAT298, AIR 1964 PATNA 298
JUDGMENT
Ramratna Singh, J.
1. This appeal ... defendant, he was allowed to occupy the nouse by one S. K. Neogi, a nephew of the plaintiff's husband, on the assurance that
Surendra Nath Chatterji, It also bore the signature of Mr. B.K. Neogi, Advocate, who had represented the decree-holders in the suit. By this ... satisfaction petition, it cannot be urged that they were represented by Mr. Neogi. He contends, however, that Mr. Neogi represented the brother Nripendra Nath Chatterji
raiyat of the holding which he had settled with one Keshab Chandra Neogy as an under-raiyat for life. In 1917 Keshab Chandra ... already been proved in a civil suit that Keshab Chandra Neogy had a life interest in the land, and further
according to law also
those proceedings the minors were represented by a guardian, Babu Basanta Kumar Neogi. The property having been sold, two applications were presented under Order ... minors with notice through their guardian ad litem, Babu Basanta Kumar Neogi. The guardian did not appear in those proceedings and accordingly a new guardian
this Court in the case of Sagarmal Agarwalla v. Smt. Annapurna Neogi (1963 BLJR 334); (AIR 1964 Pat 298) where the Court found that
Bench decision of this Court in Sagarmal Agarwalla v. Smt. Annapurna Neogi , 1963 BLJR 334 = (AIR 1964 Pat 298). He has submitted that the court
commenced, imposed or incurred."
Thereafter Sidheshwar Singh, Chandrama De, Krishna Chandra Neogy, Rampavitar Singh and Bipin Bihar Chandra filed in this Court applications under ... opinion, the present application of Sidheshwar Singh, Krishna Chandra Neogi, Ram Pavitra Singh and Bipin Biharj Chandra, who were also petitioners in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases
granted the application of respondent 1 as well as that of Upendra Neogy, one of the three persons against whom summonses were ordered
Supreme Court in the State of
Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685] to immovable
properties in order to bring them within
made to the cases of Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Chundar Neogi (16 Ind APP 23 at p. 26) and Rambhusan Das v. Anand
