THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. ON THE DEATH OF ABDUL SUBHAN, HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUSSTT. SAJIDA HAQUE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In that view of the matter, the instant appeal stands dismissed as there
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/136/2022 EMPIRE AND SINGLO TEA LIMITED (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS APEEJAY SURENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND PREVIOUSLY IT WAS KNOWN AS SINGLO INDIA TEA COMPANY LIMITED). A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APPEJAY HOUSE, 15 PARK STREET, KOLKATA AND A OFFICE AT SUFFRY, CHARAIDEO AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI SOMNATH NANDI, MANAGER, SUFFRY TEA ESTATE, P.O. SUFFRY, DIST.- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689. VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF ABDUL SUBHAN, HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUSSTT. SAJIDA HAQUE AND 2 ORS W/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN /O- RANGA PATHAR GAON, ABHAYPUR, P.O. SUFFRY, DIST.- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689. 2:MD. SAMIM AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- RANGA PATHAR GAON ABHAYPUR P.O. SUFFRY DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689. 3:MD. SABIR AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- RANGA PATHAR GAON ABHAYPUR P.O. SUFFRY DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689 Advocate for the Petitioner : S N SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Operative part
07.09.2022 Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.10/2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed in Title Suit No.34/2006 (new) 36/1988 (old) was affirmed. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that this is a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Taking into account that the suit was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, there is a bar in preferring an appeal against such judgment passed in such proceedings. Under such circumstances, the appeal so filed being Title Appeal No.10/2018, on the face of it, was not maintainable. Consequently, the instant appeal so filed under Section 100 of the CPC is also not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal stands dismissed as there arises no substantial question of law. Taking into account that the said judgment passed in Title Suit No.34/2006 is a judgment in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the appellant would be at liberty to prefer a suit based on title subject to the same being permissible as per law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the instant appeal stands dismissed as there
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 6; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.