SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYAL versus TRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYAL versus TRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

The appellant was dispossessed unlawfully without any decree or order of eviction, and without due process of law. The Court must restore possession to protect rule of law and due process.

Parties
Appellant: Sri Samir Sobhan Sanyal; Respondent No. 1: Tracks Trade Private Ltd.; Respondent No. 3: Pranav Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No. 6: Habitat Developers; Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9: Heirs of Mrs. Gertrud Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision Following Appeal From Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Possession, Execution of Decree, Specific Performance, Lease and Tenancy
Civil Procedure Specific Relief Eviction Possession Execution of Decree Specific Performance Lease and Tenancy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Samir Sobhan Sanyal

Appellant

Tracks Trade Private Ltd.

Respondent No. 1

Pranav Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent No. 3

Habitat Developers

Respondent No. 6

Heirs of Mrs. Gertrud Chand

Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision Following Appeal From Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant can be lawfully dispossessed from the premises without due process of law
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should be allowed to remain in possession until the application under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99 CPC is adjudicated

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was dispossessed unlawfully without any decree or order of eviction, and without due process of law. The Court must restore possession to protect rule of law and due process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellant to be put back in possession within 24 hours by Respondent No. 1
  • Executing Court to dispose of application under Section 28 of Specific Relief Act along with appellant's application under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99 CPC