Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 13, 2018-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Bombay high court warns man claiming possession of court building

The Bombay high court warned a man against filing applications claiming possession of the heritage building of the court, its furniture and staff based on a decree issued in 2010.

mumbai Updated: Aug 24, 2018 08:22 IST
KAY Dodhiya
KAY Dodhiya
Hindustan Times, Mumbai
Bombay high court,Susama Samanta,decree
The Bombay high court expressed displeasure after being informed that one Sukumar Samanta, appearing on behalf of decree-holder Susama Samanta, had filed a series of applications seeking possession of the entire Ward C and E of the city too, along with the court’s premises.(HT File Photo)

The Bombay high court (HC) warned a man against filing applications claiming possession of the heritage building of the court, its furniture and staff based on a decree issued in 2010. The high court expressed displeasure after being informed by its administration that one Sukumar Samanta, appearing on behalf of decree-holder Susama Samanta, had filed a series of applications seeking possession of the entire Ward C and E of the city too, along with the court’s premises.

While dismissing his execution applications, as the decree was only for three distinct properties located in Ward C and E, the bench of justice Gautam Patel asked Samanta to desist, failing which punitive orders would be passed against him for “wasting the court’s time and harassing its staff”.

Justice Patel directed the registry to not accept any other application from the decree-holder or Samanta.

He further restrained the decree-holder and Samanta from directly approaching any department, section or officer of the high court or any other court in Mumbai in regard to the decree concerned under any circumstance.

“I could scarcely credit what I was told by the registry seeking directions. Samanta not only takes up endless amount of time, but he does so in making the most extraordinary demand: that the registrar-general should deliver possession to him of the entire high court building, its grounds, furniture, equipment and staff,” said justice Patel in his order.

After efforts by justice Patel failed to impress upon Samanta that he was entitled to only the three properties and not what he demanded, justice Patel said, “Enough is enough. Samanta must be stopped. Once and for all: Samanta is not entitled to possession of one millimetre of property beyond the area and the Cadastral Survey numbers of the three properties mentioned in his decree and conveyance.”

First Published: Aug 24, 2018 06:11 IST