deletion of name of
respondent No.6 as well as for bringing on record LRs
respondent No.1 and proforma respondents ... steps for bringing on record LRs of
aforesaid deceased respondents. Since respondent No.1
and proforma respondents No.7 and 8 had died during
Basti dismissing thereby Crl. Revision No.3 of 2013 filed by proforma respondents no.2 & 3 Uma Shankar Patwa & Daya Shankar Patwa (Annexure ... Basti refusing to grant permission to withdraw prosecution against the proforma respondents no. 2 & 3 in case crime no.1525
Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 with the Respondent No. 1 but
was an Agreement between the Respondent No. 3 with the
Respondent ... such the Arbitration Clause could not
have been invoked against the Proforma Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5
and 6 as the said proforma Respondent were
Petitioner and proforma respondents 2 and 3 as well
responded to above Invitation of Bid. In all, five tenderers
responded. Of five, four tenderers were ... consortium of three companies, i.e.
petitioner no.2 and proforma respondents 2&3, which had
entered into a Consortium Agreement dated 1st October
Gupta, Adv.
For proforma respondent : Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Suchishmita Chatterjee, Adv.
Heard ... respondent no.4 in year 2017.
In year 2017 respondent no.4 did not have the right to confer
degrees to students of proforma respondent
that the petitioner is claiming to be a lessee under the proforma respondents i.e. the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation and the State ... behalf of the respective respondents, each adopting the other respondents' arguments and supplementing to the other respondents' arguments. The following are such submissions
Lotha, Sh. Girraj ji ki
Talhati, Tehsil Deeg. District Bharatpur.
Proforma-Respondent
3. Balram Goyal s/o Sh. Nemichand Goyal ... Lotha, Sh. Giraj ji ki Talhati, Tehsil
Deeg, District Bharatpur
Proforma-Respondent
4. Om Prakash Verma s/o Sh. Ghasiram
Princely State, Shri M.R.Sapat to transfer Mandir Palace to
proforma respondent Hukam Singh. It is stated in the plaint that
before issuance ... owned by proforma respondent is also given to the first respondent
by an oral partition dated 30.03.1986.
Thus, in totality, the respondents-plaintiffs have claimed
case as set up by the
plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) are that
the respondent filed a suit for possession ... appellant further
mortgaged with possession the aforesaid houses to proforma
respondent No.2 and the same are now in possession of proforma
respondent
also the proforma respondents in
W.P.C No. 7106 of 2006 are referred as proforma respondents
3
hereinafter.
5. The factual background ... Survey
and Settlement operations which was finally published on
02.03.1967 . The proforma respondents also made objection
stating that the said land is a joint property
