Srimatya Pusparani Maity And Ors AMIT BARAN DASH vs SUBAL KUMAR SAU AND ORS — SAT/109/2026
Case under Transfer of Property Act ,1882 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0198002026
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
Filing Number
SAT/112/2026
Filing Date
27-04-2026
Registration No
SAT/109/2026
Registration Date
27-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Title Declaration ( 51 )
Judicial Branch
STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Srimatya Pusparani Maity And Ors AMIT BARAN DASH
SUMAN KALYAN MAITY
SUJIT KALYAN MAITY
ALPANA MAITY
SUBHARUN MAITY
SUJIT KALYAN MAITY
ALPANA MAITY
SUBHARUN MAITY
SUDIP KALYAN MAITY
SUKIRAN MAITY
SURANJANA MAITY
Respondent(s)
SUBAL KUMAR SAU AND ORS
SANJAY KUMAR SAU
SUNIL KUMAR SAU
BANDANA GIRI
ANINDITA ADAK
CHANDANA MAITI NEE PATRA
ARNAB JANA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: SAT 109/2026 The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction suit based on lease expiry. The appellants contended that a 1996 compromise decree (solenama) novated the original 1994 lease deed, thereby altering its terms and triggering renewal rights. The court rejected this, finding the 1996 decree constituted merely an amendment to the 1994 lease, not a substitute contract, and held no unfettered renewal rights existed under either document. The lower courts' concurrent factual findings supported eviction on lease expiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: SAT 109/2026 The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction suit based on lease expiry. The appellants contended that a 1996 compromise decree (solenama) novated the original 1994 lease deed, thereby altering its terms and triggering renewal rights. The court rejected this, finding the 1996 decree constituted merely an amendment to the 1994 lease, not a substitute contract, and held no unfettered renewal rights existed under either document. The lower courts' concurrent factual findings supported eviction on lease expiry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts