Supreme Court Modifies Interim Order in Eviction Case — Adjusts Monthly Compensation. The court found the revised monthly compensation reasonable based on the financial context and directed timely compliance.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by Sharma Kapoor & Co. against an interim order from the High Court at Calcutta concerning eviction proceedings initiated by Damayanti Mishra and others. The High Court had previously ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as occupational charges while the second appeal was pending. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the respondents had requested mense profits at a lower rate of Rs. 30 per day, totaling Rs. 900 per month. Additionally, the court considered that the appellant's son had rented a nearby property for Rs. 20,000 per month. In light of these factors, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, reducing the monthly deposit to Rs. 5,000, to be paid starting February 15, 2008. The court stipulated that failure to make two consecutive payments would result in the automatic vacation of the interim order. The Supreme Court also urged the High Court to expedite the resolution of the pending second appeal within one year. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Modification of Compensation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The court modified the interim order regarding occupational charges from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month during the pendency of the second appeal, considering the circumstances of the case and the financial implications for the appellant. Held that the modified amount was reasonable given the context of the case (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the monthly compensation for occupational charges should be modified during the pendency of the second appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court modified the interim order to require the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as occupational charges, with specific conditions for compliance and consequences for default.

Law Points

  • Interim relief
  • eviction
  • occupational charges
  • stay of execution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (01) 246

Appeal (civil) 56 of 2008

2008-01-07

Tarun Chatterjee, Dalveer Bhandari

SHARMA KAPOOR & CO.

DAMAYANTI MISHRA & ORS.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an interim order regarding eviction and occupational charges.

Remedy Sought

Modification of the monthly compensation amount for occupational charges.

Filing Reason

Challenge to the High Court's interim order requiring payment of Rs. 20,000 per month.

Previous Decisions

High Court ordered Rs. 20,000 per month as occupational charges.

Issues

Modification of interim compensation amount Conditions for stay of eviction order

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for reduction of monthly charges based on financial circumstances. Respondents sought to maintain the original order of Rs. 20,000 per month.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to modify the interim order based on the financial context and the need for a fair resolution during the pendency of the appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant shall go on paying and/or depositing occupational charges/compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- every month. In default of two consecutive deposits in the manner indicated above, the interim order granted by the High Court shall automatically stand vacated.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from an interim order of the High Court in CA No. 2437 of 2006, related to a pending second appeal SAT No. 1168 of 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Clarifies Armed Forces Disciplinary Powers in Adultery Case - Union of India's Application for Clarification Allowed. The Court held that the decriminalization of adultery under Section 497 IPC does not preclude disciplinary action agai...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Pension Counting for Part-Time Village Assistant Service - 50% of Pre-Regularisation Service to Be Included Under G.O. Ms. No. 33 and Supreme Court Order. The court held that the benefit of counting 50% of service rendered as...