PALLABI GHOSAL ALIAS PALLABI GHOSAL MUKHERJEE RUDRANIL DAS vs SHYAMALI DAS — CO/1076/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act ,1963 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0140332026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

07th April 2026

Filing Number

CO/1080/2026

Filing Date

23-03-2026

Registration No

CO/1076/2026

Registration Date

23-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 57 )

Judicial Branch

RULE SECTION

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act ,1963 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

PALLABI GHOSAL ALIAS PALLABI GHOSAL MUKHERJEE RUDRANIL DAS

Respondent(s)

SHYAMALI DAS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

07-04-2026

NEW MOTION

06-05-2026

NEW MOTION

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Case Summary: CO/1076/2026 The Calcutta High Court partially allowed the petition, finding that the Advocate Commissioner improperly conducted commission proceedings on November 18, 2025, by failing to record the deposition and document exhibits despite recording minutes. The court directed the Commissioner to restart examination from November 11, 2025, and complete it within two months; if the petitioner causes delay, the witness's evidence will be closed. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the removal application but deleted adverse observations about the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CO/1076/2026 The Calcutta High Court partially allowed the petition, finding that the Advocate Commissioner improperly conducted commission proceedings on November 18, 2025, by failing to record the deposition and document exhibits despite recording minutes. The court directed the Commissioner to restart examination from November 11, 2025, and complete it within two months; if the petitioner causes delay, the witness's evidence will be closed. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the removal application but deleted adverse observations about the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case