ANDREW YULE AND CO LTD KANCHAN JAJU vs SAMARENDRA NATH SHAW AND ANR — RVWO/4/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCO0002612026

Filing Number

RVWO/4/2026

Filing Date

21-Jan-2026

Registration No

RVWO/4/2026

Registration Date

21-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

APPEAL SECTION

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 16-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANDREW YULE AND CO LTD KANCHAN JAJU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAMARENDRA NATH SHAW AND ANR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

    Summary The Calcutta High Court dismissed Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd.'s review application challenging a December 2025 order. The court held that the application failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the record and that the plaintiff had clearly pleaded exigency regarding a deity estate's financial needs in its original petition. The court ruled that disagreement with the court's reasoning constitutes grounds for appeal, not review, and therefore the review application lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  5. 13-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop ChowdhuryView PDF

  6. 21-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RVWO/4/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Calcutta High Court dismissed Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd.'s review application challenging a December 2025 order. The court held that the application failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the record and that the plaintiff had clearly pleaded exigency regarding a deity estate's financial needs in its original petition. The court ruled that disagreement with the court's reasoning constitutes grounds for appeal, not review, and therefore the review application lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case