w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. v/s Soumen Saha


Company & Directors' Information:- SAHA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA1991PTC012267

Company & Directors' Information:- KAMALA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC138555

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SAHA LTD [Active] CIN = U36920WB1933PLC007695

Company & Directors' Information:- B N SAHA CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U12000WB1938PTC009498

    First Appeal No. A/701/2015

    Decided On, 25 April 2019

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. DIPA SEN (MAITY)
    By, MEMBER

   



Judgment Text

Samaresh Prasad Chowhdury, Presiding Member

The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 505/2014. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the Appellants like – (a) to deliver peaceful vacant possession of the Schedule ‘B’ flat in habitable condition and car parking space in useable condition in favour of complainant/respondent within two months from the date of the order; (b) to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat and garage space in favour of the complainant on receipt of balance consideration amount; (c) to handover possession certificate and Completion Certificate in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of complainant/respondent within three months from the date of order; (d) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation; (e) to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and the same must be paid within two months from the date of order, failing which OPs shall have to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day from the date of order till its realisation as punitive damages.

The Respondent herein Sri Soumen Saha being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that on 02.12.2011 he entered into an registered Agreement for Sale with the OPs to purchase of a self-contained residential flat measuring about 843 sq. ft. super built up area being Flat No.2F/C, located at 2nd floor and one garage in the ground floor in a premises lying and situated at Holding No.56, School Road, P.S.- Khardah, Dist- North 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No.16 of Panihati Municipality at a total consideration of Rs.12,64,500/- for the flat and Rs.2,80,000/- for garage space aggregating Rs.15,44,500/-. The complainant has stated that he has already paid Rs.12,35,600/- out of total consideration amount. The complainant has also stated that as per terms of the Agreement, on payment of balance amount of Rs.3,08,900/- the OPs will complete the flat and deliver possession and also execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant within March, 2012. The complainant has alleged that the OPs could not keep their promise in handing over possession of the flat and car parking space within time and in this regard, all his persuasions and legal notice in this regard went in vain. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of appellants with prayer for several reliefs, viz. –(a) the OPs/appellants be directed to deliver peaceful possession of ‘B’ Schedule flat in habitable condition and garage space in useable condition in favour of the complainant; (b) the OPs/appellants be directed to execute and register the proper Deed of Conveyance in respect of ‘B’ Schedule flat and garage space after receipt of balance consideration amount; (c) the OPs/appellants be directed to handover a copy of Completion Certificate in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property; (d) the OPs/appellants be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony; (e) the OPs/appellants be directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-; (f) the OPs/appellants be directed to pay punitive damages etc.

The Appellants /Opposite Parties by filing written version admitted the existence of Agreement for Sale and the amount of part consideration paid by the complainant but it has been stated that despite several requests, complainants flatly refused to make any further payment and as such the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

On evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs, as indicated above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

Mr. Kajal Kr. Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not consider the fact that the size of the flat mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ to the Agreement for Sale has been increased to 30 sq. ft. and the value of the same comes to Rs.45,000/- and unless the same is measured by a technical person, the appellants will be seriously prejudiced and as such he has made a prayer to remit the case on remand for adjudication of the matter afresh after reception of report of expert in ascertaining the actual saleable area of the flat in question. He has also canvassed that due to inept handling of the matter by the authorised representative to whom the appellants engaged before the Ld. District Forum, the appellants should not suffer. To fortify his submission, Ld. Advocate for the appellants placed reliance to a decision of Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in (2004) 3 CPJ 231 [Olive Extross – Vs. – Merlyn Fenandes Merlvin & Anr.].

On the other hand, Mr. Tarun Jyoti Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has contended that nowhere in the written version, the appellants have mentioned about the excessive area of the subject flat than what has been mentioned in the Agreement for Sale. He has also submitted that the appellants had opportunity to prove the same by appointing an Engineer Commissioner and when the appellants did not choose to file an application for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong at this appellate stage, which in turn will put a consumer in further peril and as such the impugned order should not be interfered with. In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (9) SCC 514 [Haryana Urban Development Authority – Vs. – Smt. Dropadi Devi] and another decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (4) CPJ 294 [Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. – Vs. – Dyal Singh].

We have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and seen the materials on record.

Undisputedly, the Appellants being owner/developer had entered into a registered Agreement for Sale with the respondent on 02.12.2011 to sell one self-contained residential flat measuring about 843 sq. ft. super built up area being Flat No.2F/C located at 2nd floor and one garage space in the ground floor in the premises lying and situated at Holding No.56, School Road, P.S.- Khardah, Dist- North 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No.16 of Panihati Municipality at a total consideration of Rs.12,64,500/- for the flat and Rs.2,80,000/- for garage space aggregating Rs.15,44,500/-. The overwhelming evidence on record also goes to show that the respondent has already paid Rs.12,35,600/- as part consideration amount towards the said total consideration amount leaving a balance of only Rs.3,08,900/-.

In the Agreement for Sale (inner Page-10), it has been specifically mentioned the balance amount of Rs.3,08,900/- will be paid on completion and finishing of the said flat and the car parking space in all respect and simultaneously on execution of Deed of Conveyance with respect to the said flat and delivery vacant and peaceful possession will be made over by the vendors/developer to the purchaser within March, 2012. Evidently, the appellants could not fulfil their promise in handing over the subject flat within the time frame.

It is true in Clause-5 of the Agreement (inner page-11), it was agreed by the parties that after completion of the building, if the areas of the said flat shall decrease/increase, then the vendor/developer shall be liable to reduce/increase the consideration proportionately to the purchaser for such decrease/increase areas at the rate fixed. In his evidence on affidavit, Sri Om Prakash Singh (OP No.2) has stated that they are ready to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant/respondent subject to payment in respect of the measurement of both the flats and garage and the extra work done by them. He has also stated that without a proper measurement of flat and garage, any order would prejudice to them. Surprisingly enough, the appellants/OPs did not take any pain to file an application for appointment of an expert in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act to substantiate their contention. On the contrary, by a notice through their Advocate dated 29.08.2013 they claimed balance consideration and Rs.90,000/- for extra work done by them. However, the appellants have failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the respondent/complainant has ever agreed to do any extra work beyond the terms of Agreement for Sale and, therefore, unless an agreement is followed by any supplementary agreement, there is hardly any scope to rewrite the Agreement for Sale between the parties executed on 02.12.2011.

The decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants in connection with Olive Extross (supra) has no manner of application in our case because in the said case due to inept handling of the case by the authorised representative of the complainant, several documents could not be placed before the Ld. District Forum. But in our case, it is quite evident that the appellants moved the complaint before the Ld. District Forum through an Advocate and in the affidavit filed by the appellants, it has been categorically mentioned that unless the measurement of the flat and garage space are taken, they will be seriously prejudiced but despite such statement, no effective step was taken for appointment of a technical person to take measurement of the flat and car parking space. Therefore, the referred decision is totally mismatch with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, keeping in view the decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the respondents we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent being ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act hired the services of appellants to purchase of a flat and car parking space and the appellants have failed to keep their promise in handing over the same within the stipulated period as per agreement and thereby deficient in rendering services as defined in Section 2 (1)(g) read with Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act.

In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in directing the Opposite Parties/Appellants to deliver the possession of the flat and car parking space and also to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance as per Agreement for Sale dated 02.12.2011 on receipt of balance consideration amount. The Ld. District Forum is also justified in directing the appellants/OPs to handover possession certificate and completion certificate in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property within three months from the date of order. Considering the harassment and mental agony and the loss suffered by the complainant, we think the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- are not on the higher side.

However, we do not find any reason for imposition of punitive damages of Rs.100/- per day. In a decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 429 (General Motor (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Vs. – Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr.) a question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whether in absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages is permissible?. In answering to the question – the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed – “

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Normally, punitive damages are awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specifically pleaded”. In the case before hand, the respondent/complainant has claimed punitive damages in the prayer clause of the Petition of Complaint without mentioning any amount on that count but there is no averment in the complaint about suffering of punitive damages by the other consumers nor the appellants were aware that any such claim is to be met by it and the appellants having no notice of such a claim, the said order is contrary to the principles of fair procedure and natural justice. Therefore, when fair procedure is the hallmark of natural justice, the order of punitive damages imposed by the Ld. District Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law. In view of the above, the impugned Judgement/Final Order is modified only to the extent that the appellants/OPs shall have no obligation to pay Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages. However, the other part of the order is maintained. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas at Barasat for information.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-09-2020 Emirates Airlines Versus Srikanta Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2020 Manoj Kumar Saha @ Manoj Kumar Sah Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise & Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Pushpak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Goutam Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Bidyut Kumar Saha Versus Tapa Saha High Court of Tripura
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo, West Bengal Versus IPSITA Saha, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo Versus IPSITA Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Neeta Saha, Member of Suspended Board of Palm Developers Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Versus Ram Niwas Gupta (Proprietor of Ram Niwas Gupta & sons), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Kaushik Saha Versus The Genaral Manager, SBI & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Versus On Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-02-2020 Lipika Dey (Saha) Versus Babul Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Bijali Saha & Another Versus Riman Saha High Court of Tripura
03-02-2020 Debasish Saha Versus Godrej Properties Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Pankaj Behari Saha V/S The State of Tripura, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
17-01-2020 Monotosh Saha Versus Sanjit Thakurata & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-01-2020 Bibhas Saha & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-01-2020 Debasish Saha & Others Versus Godrej Properties Limited & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-11-2019 Santi Swaasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Iti Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Debdas Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Saha Versus UCO Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-09-2019 Goutam Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-09-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-09-2019 Shibani Saha & Another Versus Subhasish Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2019 M/s. Aridipa Enterprise Rep. by its partner, Soma Basu Versus Partha Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2019 M/s. Bose Enterprise Rep. by Rana Basu & Another Versus Chayanika Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-08-2019 Jagannath Saha @ Rinku Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-08-2019 Bikash Kr. Saha Versus The Branch Manager, Muragachha, Dharmada CCC West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-08-2019 Sukanta Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-07-2019 Kishori Mohan Sinha alias Singha Versus Kumaresh Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2019 Debabrata Dutta Versus Joy Gopal Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2019 Abir Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-07-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manabendra Saha Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-07-2019 Kabita Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-07-2019 Union of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Others Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha & Another Supreme Court of India
01-07-2019 Ranjit Kumar Sarkar Versus Pew Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2019 Sribash Chandra Saha & Others Versus Rubber Board & Others High Court of Tripura
29-05-2019 Sushmita Saha Versus M/s. Amarpali Property Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Nandini Bala Saha Versus Dr. M. Pramanik & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-05-2019 Sanjukta Saha & Others Versus Chandana Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-05-2019 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-04-2019 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. DLF Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-04-2019 Bhajan Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
29-03-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Susmita Saha High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Tapas Dey Versus Aronjit Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-03-2019 Bhelupada Saha @ Velupada Saha Versus Prahallad Ghosh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-02-2019 Dr. Prasanta Saha Versus Pritam Sarkar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2019 The Station Master, Berhampore Court Station P.O. & P.S. & Others Versus Aditya Kumar Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2019 Sumit Kumar Saha Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-01-2019 Sangita Saha Versus Abhijit Saha & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2019 Dipak Kumar Saha Versus Bandhan Bild Con. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2019 Bhajan Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2019 Partha Sarathi Saha (Proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Automobiles) Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Delhi
28-11-2018 Sanjib Saha & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2018 Sanjoy Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-11-2018 Biltu Saha & Others Versus The Union of India, Through the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-10-2018 Soma Saha Versus Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd. High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2018 Mandira Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-09-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Uttam Kr. Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
19-09-2018 Jayanta Saha, Kolkata Versus Dcit, Circle - 25, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
18-09-2018 Mobile Store Versus Subal Saha & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
14-09-2018 Kamal Saha Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-09-2018 Anand Kumar Saraogi & Another Versus Amitamoyee Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-08-2018 Milon Roy Chowdhury Versus Ashis Kumar Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-08-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Ashim Kumar Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-08-2018 Suman Saha Versus Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-08-2018 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Saha Versus Ombir Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2018 Archana Roy (Saha) & Others Versus Sanjib Bhattacharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-07-2018 Mani Saha Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospital & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2018 Paramita Saha (Nandi) Versus Birangshu Narayan Dash Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Debabrata Saha Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dulali Saha & Others High Court of Tripura
03-07-2018 Sukumar Sutradhar & Another Versus Sanjoy Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-06-2018 Sanjib Ratan Saha Versus The Institute of Cost Accountant of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-06-2018 Dr. Arindam Butt Versus Manoj Kumar Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-06-2018 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus Susmita Bhowmik & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-05-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihir Lal Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-05-2018 Manager, Bank of Baroda Jodhpur Park Branch Versus Susanta Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-04-2018 Gopal Saha Versus Anil Roy Chowdhury & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-04-2018 Dr. Anirban Jana, Medical Officer, Kasturi District Hospital Versus Kamal Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2018 Sunipa Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
19-03-2018 Sima Saha Versus Prabir Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
15-03-2018 Rama Saha Versus M/s. Dream Dwellings & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-02-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sumit Kumar Saha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-02-2018 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. D.L.F. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-02-2018 Union of India Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha High Court of Gauhati
02-02-2018 Dr. Kunal Saha & Another Versus Principal Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-01-2018 Chittaranjan Saha & Others Versus Arun Kumar Das High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-01-2018 Tapati Saha & Others Versus Sukumar Dutta & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-01-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihirlal Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2018 Shanti Dey @ Santi Dey Versus Sri Suvodeep Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-12-2017 Tapas Kumar Saha Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2017 Ashis Kanti Saha Versus The Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, Represented by its Chairman, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
04-12-2017 Bijoli Rani Saha @ Bijali Saha Versus Prabal Basak High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-11-2017 Chhana Rani Saha Versus Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal Supreme Court of India
14-11-2017 Sayed Ekram Saha & Others Versus Debendra Kumar Pati & Others High Court of Orissa