Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUCHITRA NAG versus COMMISSIONER, SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS

Decided
10 March 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 774 · 1995 INSC 185

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 775, margin B

The appellant had filed objections against the impugned order of the 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, Calcutta - 700019. She claimed that the said property is not liable for attachment and she had no connection with Sanchaita Investments or any of its partners or agents or sub-agents. She purports to set up her own independent right, title and interest in the said flat de hors her husband.

p. 775, margin C

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 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.

p. 775, margin D

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 to consider and dispose of the objections according to law expeditiously. B.K.M. Appeal allowed.

p. 775, margin F