M/S. NVENT REALTY PVT. LTD. DEBJIT DUTTA vs PULIN SARDAR AND ORS. — CO/1192/2026
Case under Specific Relief Act ,1963 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0158692026
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
CO/1198/2026
Filing Date
01-04-2026
Registration No
CO/1192/2026
Registration Date
01-04-2026
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
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S. NVENT REALTY PVT. LTD. DEBJIT DUTTA
Respondent(s)
PULIN SARDAR AND ORS.
GAUR SARDAR
SISHUBALA MONDAL
AMIT KUMAR SARDAR
KARABI DHALI
KANAI SARDAR
BALAI SARDAR
SABITA MONDAL
NAMITA HAZRA
KABITA HAZRA
SHYAMAL CH. SARDAR
HABUL SARDAR
SWAPAN SARDAR
GITA NASKAR
ANITA MONDAL
RENUKA SARDAR
KAMALA MONDAL
KAMALA BISWAS
AMAR GHOSH
HARUGOPAL BISWAS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
NEW MOTION
NEW MOTION
NEW MOTION
NEW MOTION
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 17-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 16-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 13-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 10-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
Summary The court set aside the trial court's orders rejecting the defendant's adjournment application and recall petition, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to cross-examine PW1 subject to payment of ₹25,000 in costs within ten days. The court found that while the defendant's conduct was problematic, closing evidence without permitting cross-examination could seriously prejudice the case outcome, warranting judicial interference in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court set aside the trial court's orders rejecting the defendant's adjournment application and recall petition, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to cross-examine PW1 subject to payment of ₹25,000 in costs within ten days. The court found that while the defendant's conduct was problematic, closing evidence without permitting cross-examination could seriously prejudice the case outcome, warranting judicial interference in the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts