SMT. BINA DEBI BAGARIA AND ORS AJAY KUMAR BAGARIA (IN PERSON) vs RUCHIR BAGARIA AND ORS — APOT/69/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0014352026
Filing Number
APOT/70/2026
Filing Date
20-04-2026
Registration No
APOT/69/2026
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 PERSON)
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 both appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) on grounds of improper maintainability. The court held that appellant no.4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, was not entitled to represent the other three appellants solely on the basis of a power of attorney without seeking prior court permission. The court also upheld the trial judge's orders dismissing applications for appointing a special officer (due to pending parallel writ proceedings) and denying addition of unnecessary parties to the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed both appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) on grounds of improper maintainability. The court held that appellant no.4 (Ajay Kumar Bagaria), a non-advocate, was not entitled to represent the other three appellants solely on the basis of a power of attorney without seeking prior court permission. The court also upheld the trial judge's orders dismissing applications for appointing a special officer (due to pending parallel writ proceedings) and denying addition of unnecessary parties to the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts