SMT. BINA DEBI BAGARIA AND ORS AJAY KUMAR BAGARIA (IN vs RUCHIR BAGARIA AND ORS — APOT/68/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0014342026
Filing Number
APOT/69/2026
Filing Date
20-04-2026
Registration No
APOT/68/2026
Registration Date
20-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
APPEAL SECTION
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SMT. BINA DEBI BAGARIA AND ORS AJAY KUMAR BAGARIA (IN
Respondent(s)
RUCHIR BAGARIA AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
NEW APPLICATIONS
NEW APPLICATIONS
NEW APPLICATIONS
NEW APPLICATIONS
NEW APPLICATIONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | NEW APPLICATIONS |
| 06-05-2026 | NEW APPLICATIONS |
| 05-05-2026 | NEW APPLICATIONS |
| 04-05-2026 | NEW APPLICATIONS |
| 30-04-2026 | NEW APPLICATIONS |
Orders
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed two appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) filed by Smt. Bina Debi Bagaria and others against Ruchir Bagaria on grounds of procedural defects. The court found the appeals unmaintainable because Appellant No. 4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, attempted to represent the other three appellants based on power of attorney without obtaining prior court permission—only advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act have the right to plead in court, and non-advocates can only represent parties with express court sanction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed two appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) filed by Smt. Bina Debi Bagaria and others against Ruchir Bagaria on grounds of procedural defects. The court found the appeals unmaintainable because Appellant No. 4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, attempted to represent the other three appellants based on power of attorney without obtaining prior court permission—only advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act have the right to plead in court, and non-advocates can only represent parties with express court sanction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts