Amar Nath Roy and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Kedia and Anr.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Markandey Katju
- Gyan Sudha Misra
- Judgment Date
- 2011-05-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- Contempt Petition disposed of. Direct that the tenant, Anderson Wright & Co., shall be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force.
- Final Disposition
- Contempt Petition disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Amar Nath Roy
- Ors.
Respondents
- Arun Kumar Kedia
- Anr.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Jaideep Gupta
- • Sarad Kumar Singhania
Counsels for Respondents
- • G Ramesh Singh
Case Synopsis & Summary
This case concerns a tenancy dispute arising from eviction proceedings under rent-control and eviction laws. Amar Nath Roy and others (the appellants) challenged the eviction order following dismissal of their Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004 by this Court, which granted the tenant nine months from the date of dismissal to vacate the premises. A review petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on 25 March 2010. The tenancy remained with the appellants, who did not vacate within the allotted period, leading to a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 139 of 2011). The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, observed that the tenant did not comply with the court’s directions to vacate and proceeded to dispose of the contempt petition by directing eviction. The order directed that the tenant (Anderson Wright & Co.) be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force. The Contempt Petition was disposed of. The decision underscores that non-compliance with contempt directions in eviction disputes attracts swift enforcement and reiterates the imperative of compliance with earlier judicial orders in tenant-dispulsion matters.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contend that the earlier dismissal of the appeal and the nine‑month period to vacate were not fully complied with, and that they should be afforded relief or extended time to vacate, consistent with the contempt proceedings.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents sought strict enforcement of the contempt order, demanding eviction of the occupiers from the premises in question in compliance with the Court’s directions.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Amar Nath Roy and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Kedia and Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.