Calcutta High Court
Sri Sri Iswar Gajalakshmi Mata ... vs Marshall Sons And Company (India) ... on 8 May, 2025
OD-1 to 4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/16/2025
In
EC/309/2019
SRI SRI ISWAR GAJALAKSHMI MATA THAKURANI AND ORS.
Vs
MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS
IA NO. GA/17/2025
In
EC/309/2019
SRI SRI ISWAR GAJALAKSHMI MATA THAKURANI AND ORS.
Vs
MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS
IA NO. GA/18/2025
In
EC/309/2019
SRI SRI ISWAR GAJALAKSHMI MATA THAKURANI AND ORS.
Vs
MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS
IA NO. GA/19/2025
In
EC/309/2019
SRI SRI ISWAR GAJALAKSHMI MATA THAKURANI AND ORS.
Vs
MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Date : MAY 08, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Radhika Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Samriddha Sen, Adv
...for the decree-holders
2
Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Brajesh Jha, Adv.
Mr.Abhilash Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Anushka Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Akash Adak, Adv.
For the Applicant in GA/19/2025
Mr. Noelle Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv.
Ms. Bhawna Parasramka, Adv.
Ms. Siddhi Agarwal, Adv.
For the Applicant
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Biswaroopo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mrs. Smita Mukherjee, Adv.
...for the judgment-debtors
Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Adv.
Mrs. Iram Hassan, Adv.
Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Adv.
Ms. Y. Agarwal, Adv.
...for the respondent no.1
Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Mishra, Adv.
Mrs. Sabnam Laskar, Adv.
...for the respondent no.2
Mr. Shubasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Baid, Adv.
Mr. Akash Munshi, Adv.
Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Tamoghna Saha, Adv.
Ms. Sanjana Shaw, Adv.
For the Intervenor
The Court:- Ms. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the applicant and learned
Advocate for the defendants are present.
Heard Ms. Banerjee. This issue involves several applicants of the suit
property and it is just and reasonable to hear all the applicants on a particular
date on the common points of law.
Learned Advocates for the decree holder is also present.
Heard learned Advocate for the decree holder but it is not possible to
conclude the hearing today. Although there is some urgency in this matter as
because there is a direction issued upon the Sheriff to visit the suit property for
execution and learned Advocate for the decree holder prays for early hearing
before vacation but considering the nature of the case and pendency of several
applications, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to fix the
case after vacation.
Although there is no bar to execute the decree with regard to those
portions of the suit property where application is not filed but considering the
nature of the property it is not possible to identify as to whose application is
pending.
Thus, in the interest of justice, no further proceeding be taken by the
Sheriff till 12th June, 2025.
Affidavit may be filed in the meantime.
Let this matter appear on 12th June, 2025 at 10.30 A. M.
(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)
A Dey
