A
SUCHITRA NAG
v.
COMMISSIONER, SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS
MARCH 10, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Administrative Law : Principles of Natural justice-Attachment of
y
property-Wife claimed to be owner of property-Court allowing attachment
considering the case of the husband only-Held, attachment not valid without
~
c considering the case of the wife.
~
The trial court passed a decree against the husband of the appellant.
---r-
T.ae High Court affirmed the decree passed by the trial court mainly
considering the case set up by the husband of the appellant.
D
The appellant filed objection before the High Court claiming that
she was the owner of the suit flat and that she had her own independent
right, title and interest in the suit flat de hors her husband. She further
claimed that she had no connection with Sanchaita Investments or any of
,,--...
its partners or agents or sub-agents. The High Court dismissed the
E
objections flied by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter back to the . High
Court for considering and disposing the objections of the appellant, this
court
F
HELD : From the judgment of the High Court, it would appear that
(
the Division BeF.ch had not considered the case set up by the appellant. It
mainly considered the case of her husband who had denied the liability
and held him liable to the amount claimed by the respondent. While
f
affirming the decree, it would appear that the claim set up by the appellant
~
did not appear to have been even adverted to by the High Court, as while
G dismissing the appeal filed by the wife, it was stated that it was disposed
of in terms of the order passed in the appeal of her husband. [775-E]
\,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3982 of
'-
1995.
'-
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.94 of the Calcutta High
774
l'
l
S. NAG v. COMMR. SAN CHAIT A INVES1MENTS
775
Court in Matter No. 4134 of 1990.
A.S. Nambiar, Chanchal Kr. Dutta, P. Dutta and Mrs. Sarla Chandra
for the Appellant.
Gobinda Mukhoty, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri and Samir Ghosh for the
A
Respondent.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The appellant had filed objections against the impugned order of the C
Division Bench of the High Court dated July 21, 1994 rendered in matter
No. 4134/90. The appellant claimed that she is the owner of the property
bearing No. 4F, Nabarog Samabaya Abasan Ud., 15, Mayfair Road, Cal-
cutta - 700019. She claimed that the said property is not liable for attach-
ment and she had no connection with Sanchaita Investments or any of its D
partners or agents or sub-agents. She purports to set up her own inde-
pendent right, title and interest in the said flat de hors her husband.
From the judgment it would appear that the Division Bench had not
considered the case set up by her. It mainly considered the case of her
husband who had denie~ the liability and held him liable to the amount E
claimed by ·the respondent. Accordingly the decree as passed by the trial
court was affirmed. While affirming the decree, it would appear that the
claim set up by the appellant did not appear to have been adverted to.
While dismissing the appeal, there was mention that it was disposed of in
terms of the order passed.in the appeal of her husband.
F
Under these circumstances, we think that it would be proper to remit
the matter to the High Court to consider the purported claim of the
appellant with regard to the said flat and to proceed according to law. The
appeal is accordingly allowed, by setting aside the order of the Division
Bench insofar as it relates to the appellant. The High Court is requested G
to consider and dispose of the objections according to law expeditiously.
B.K.M.
Appeal allowed.
Lex