{"id":59742,"date":"1983-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983"},"modified":"2016-11-27T03:20:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T21:50:53","slug":"in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","title":{"rendered":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Cal 250, 87 CWN 400<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Dutta<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Dutta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>Amitabha Dutta, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. This revisional application tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 4-1-83 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1983 staying the operation of an ex parte order of ad interim injunction dated 22-12-82 made by the learned Munsif-in-charge 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 256 &amp; of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. It appears that on 23-12-82 the<br \/>\npetitioner along with opposite party NO.\n<\/p>\n<p>2 filed Title Suit No. 256 of 1982 in the<br \/>\nFirst Court of Munsif, Hooghly against<br \/>\nthe defendant-opposite party No. 1, Dun-\n<\/p>\n<p>lop India Limited challenging the order<br \/>\nof suspension and the charge-sheet issu<br \/>\ned against the petitioner by the defen<br \/>\ndants&#8217; letters Nos. CS\/2\/82 and CS\/1\/82<br \/>\ndated 26-11-82 respectively. The plaintiff<br \/>\nalso filed a petition under Order 39, Rule 1<br \/>\nand 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for an<br \/>\norder of temporary injunction against<br \/>\nthe defendant restraining it from giving<br \/>\neffect to the said charge-sheet and also<br \/>\nfrom taking any further penal action<br \/>\nagainst the plaintiff till the disposal of<br \/>\nthe suit and an order of ad interim in<br \/>\njunction to that effect on the grounds<br \/>\nstated in the petition. On the same date<br \/>\nthe learned Munsif passed order issuing<br \/>\nnotice on the defendant to show cause<br \/>\nwithin 10 days from the service thereof<br \/>\nwhy the plaintiff&#8217;s petition for temporary<br \/>\ninjunction should not be allowed and<br \/>\ngranting an ad interim injunction in<br \/>\nterms of the plaintiff&#8217;s prayer against the<br \/>\ndefendant till the disposal of the injunc<br \/>\ntion matter. The defendant company ap<br \/>\npeared in the suit and on 3-1-83 moved<br \/>\nan application under Order 39, Rule 4 of<br \/>\nthe Code with notice to the plaintiffs for<br \/>\nvacaing their interim injunction. The<br \/>\nlearned Munsif fixed the matter on 6-1-\n<\/p>\n<p>83 for hearing. In the meantime on 4-1-\n<\/p>\n<p>83 the defendant preferred Mise. Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 4 of 1983 before the learned District<br \/>\nJudge, Hooghly against the order of ad<br \/>\ninterim injunction and applied for stay<br \/>\nof operation of the said order till the<br \/>\ndisposal of the appeal; The learned Dis<br \/>\ntrict Judge ordered issue of notice upon<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs-respondents to show cause<br \/>\nwithin seven days of service of the notice<br \/>\nwhy the stay order as prayed for should<br \/>\nnot be granted and passed the impugned<br \/>\norder of interim stay of operation of the<br \/>\norder of ad interim injunction under<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is, submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned District Judge has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned stay order as no appeal flies) under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code against an order of ad interim injunction when an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code for varying or vacating the said order is pending before the Court of first instance. In support of his submissions he<\/p>\n<p>has relied on the Bench decision in Ab-dul Shukeer v. Uma Chander, AIR 1976 Mad 350 and in Zilla parishad v. B. R. Sharma  (FB). On the other hand it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the defendant-opposite party No. 1 that the remedies available to the defendant against an ex parte order of ad interim injunction are by way of an application for vacating or varying the order under Order 39, Rule 4 and an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code and that the two remedies being concurrent, there is no substance in the present revisional application. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the Bench decision in United Club v. Nowgong Football Association, AIR 1964 Assam 81 in which the point at issue in the present case directly arose and was decided.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In my opinion, the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party are well founded and must prevail. In Abdul Shukoor v. Umachander a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has found that the grant of temporary or ad Interim injunction comes under two broad decisions viz. ad interim injunction granted by the court until disposal of the suit and ad interim injunction granted until further order and that the former presupposes a final order with reasons after hearing both parties and a conclusive determination of the right of the plaintiff to the grant of such order and so it is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) but the latter is less severe and issued without formal expression of the court&#8217;s decision, as a step in aid to a reasoned final order to he passed after notice and hearing both parties and so no appeal lies against such order, the only remedy against it being provided under Order 39, Rule 4 so that a final reasoned order can be obtained for appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code. With due respect to the learned Judges of the Madras High Court, I find it difficult to agree with their views as, in my opinion, the provisions for appeal in Order 43, Rule 1 (r) that an appeal shall lie from &#8220;an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX&#8221; do not permit classification of an order of ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 or Rule 2 or both into two divisions and taking one of the divisions out of the purview of appeal. The courts should adopt an interpretation which maintains rather<\/p>\n<p>than curtails a remedial right, even if<br \/>\nit leads to a multiplicity of proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal being a creation of<br \/>\nthe statute, its scope must be determin<br \/>\ned by a reference to the provisions of<br \/>\nthe statute conferring it and cannot be<br \/>\nwhittled down by in orpretation. It is<br \/>\nalso a substantive right and not a mere<br \/>\nmatter of procedure. I also respectfully<br \/>\nagree with the views of the Pull Bench<br \/>\nof Allahabad High. Court in Zilla Pari-\n<\/p>\n<p>shad v. B. R. Sharma,<br \/>\nhas expressed in the following observa<br \/>\ntions occurring in paragraph 12 of the<br \/>\njudgment:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Rule 1 (r) of Order 43 does not say that an appeal shall He from a final order under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX nO adequate reason is shown for interpolating the word &#8220;final&#8221; before &#8220;order&#8221; in Rule 1 (r). Courts do not ordinarily make additions in enactments. That is a legislative function&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the aforesaid Allahabad case the point for decision was whether an appeal lies against an ex parte ad interim order or not or whether such order falls within the purview of Rule 1 (r) of Order 43. In deciding that point the Full Bench expressed its views in paragraph 16 of the judgment in the following words:&#8211;<br \/>\n  &#8220;The language and the object of Rule 1 (r) of Order 43 and the scheme of Rules 1 and 4 of Order 39 show that an appeal also lies against the ex parte order of injunction. As soon as an interim injunction is issued and the party affected thereby is apprised of it he has two remedies: (1) He can either get the ex parte injunction order, discharged or varied or set aside under Rule 4 of Order 39 and if unsuccessful avail the right of appeal as provided under Order 43. Rule 1 (r) or (2) straightway file an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) against the injunction order, passed under Rules, 1 and 2 of Order 39, C.P.C., It is riot unusual, to provide for alternative remedies. For instance when an ex parte decree is passed against a person he has two remedies either he may go up in appeal against the ex parte decree or he may seek to get the ex parte decree set aside by the same court&#8221; .\n<\/p>\n<p> The learned advocate for the petitioner in the instant case has sought to argue from the above observation, that the two remedies are alternative and not concurrent. But in my view such argument<\/p>\n<p>is not (enable as the question whether<br \/>\nthe remedies are alternative or concur<br \/>\nrent did not arise for decision by the Full<br \/>\nBench of Allahabad High Court in the<br \/>\nreported case. The analogy of remedies<br \/>\nagainst the ex parte decree given in the<br \/>\nsaid observation shows that the concur<br \/>\nrent nature of the remedies has not been<br \/>\nruled out. So far as the decisions of the<br \/>\nCalcutta High Court are concerned the<br \/>\nremedies against an ex parte decree are<br \/>\nconcurrent. (See (1908) 12 Cal WN 885;\n<\/p>\n<p>(1909) 13 Cal WN 846; Mulla&#8217;s C. P.\n<\/p>\n<p>Code, 13th Edn. p. 813). The question<br \/>\nwhether the two remedies against an ex<br \/>\nparte order of ad interim injunction are<br \/>\nconcurrent or not arose directly in Unit<br \/>\ned Club v. Nowhong Football Association,<br \/>\nAIR 1964 Assam 81 and Mehrotra C. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>delivering the judgment of the Division<br \/>\nBench overruled the objection raised on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner that the opposite<br \/>\nparty had no right to come up in appeal<br \/>\nagainst an interim injunction when he<br \/>\nhad already filed objection thereto and<br \/>\nthe objection had not been finally decid<br \/>\ned by the learned Munsif and held as<br \/>\nfollows in paragraph 9 of the judgment<br \/>\n&#8221;The opposite party having known of<br \/>\nthe interim order of injunction filed ob<br \/>\njection and what was adjourned was the<br \/>\ndisposal of objections filed by the op<br \/>\nposite party No. 2. But that does not<br \/>\ndeprive the opposite party of the right<br \/>\nof appeal if he had otherwise any griev-\n<\/p>\n<p>ance against the order granting an ex<br \/>\nparte interim injunction. After the ob<br \/>\njection has been disposed of the oppo<br \/>\nsite party may have a fresh right of ap<br \/>\npeal against the order passed under<br \/>\nOrder 39, Rule 4. The fact of filing objections<br \/>\nby the opposite party does not debar<br \/>\nthe opposite party from going up in ap-\n<\/p>\n<p>peal against, the order if the appeal is<br \/>\notherwise permissible.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> I respectfully agree &#8220;with the view ex-pressed by the Division Bench of the Assam High Court which fits in with the provisions of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.   It may be mentioned that filing of an appeal against the order of ad interim injunction does not take   away   the jurisdiction of the original court to deal with the decision in controversy in any way and if the interim   stay order is vacated by the    appellate Court after giving both parties opportunity of being heard the original court will be free to decide the application under Order 39.<br \/>\nRule 4 of the Code in spite of the pendency of the appeal. The position will<\/p>\n<p>however, be, different after adjudication of the appeal when the original order has been superseded by the order of the appellate Court. So, there is no question of conflict of jurisdiction. The same position occurs in the case where both applications to set aside an ex parte decree and an appeal from the ex parte decree are filed by the defendant. In this connection reference may be made to the following observations of Sri Ashutosh Mookerjee, J. in Kumud Nath Ray v. Rai Jatindra Nath Chowdhury; (1911-13 Cal LJ 221) (225):<br \/>\n  &#8220;It is broadly contended however by the learned Vakil for the respondent upon the authority of expressions to be found in the judgments in Dhonai Sar-dar v. Tarak Nath. Chowdhury, (1910) 12 Cal LJ 53; Ramanadhan v. Narayan, (1904) ILR 27 Mad 602 and Shankara Bhatta v. Subraya Bhatta, (1907) ILR 30 Mad 535 that the immediate effect of the presentation of an appeal to a superior court against the decree of a subordinate court is to destroy the jurisdiction of the latter court to deal with the judgment in controversy in any way. We are not prepared to accept this proposition as well founded on principle and it is as a matter of fact, opposed to the decision of the House of Lords in Mellish v. Richardson (1832) 1 C. 1. and F 244:36 RR 111:6 ER 900 in which it was ruled that when the court would otherwise have the authority to amend the judgment it may be done after an appeal has been taken. This view is entirely inconsistent with the theory that the mere presentation of an appeal puts it beyond the power of the original court to deal, in any way with the judgment under appeal. The position is obviously different after the adjudication of the appeal when the original judgment has been superseded by the judgment of the court of appeal. Brij Narayan v. Tejbal (1910) 11 Cal LJ 560. The view we take has been adopted also in a long series of decisions in the American Courts amongst which reference may be made to Exp. Henderson (1887) 4. Southern 284 and Texes Railway Company v. Waker (1905) 87 SW 194. We must therefore adhere to the principle which underlines the decision of this Court in Damodor Manna v. Sarat Chandra. Dhal (1909) 13 Cal WN 846 and overrule the contention of the respondent that the original court could not entertain the<br \/>\napplication to set aside the ex parte de-\n<\/p>\n<p>cree presented by the appellant merely because the contesting defendant had preferred an appeal to this Court&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. In the instant case it is open to the appellate Court either to maintain the stay order till the disposal of the appeal and decide the appeal itself or to vacate the interim stay order to permit the learned Munsif to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code keeping the appeal pending. In any event, it cannot be said that the appeal does not lie merely because an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code was filed by the defendant-opposite party No. 1 before preferring the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I, therefore, hold that in the pre<br \/>\nsent case the appeal preferred by the<br \/>\ndefendant-opposite party No. l is main<br \/>\ntainable and the appellate court has not<br \/>\ncommitted any error of jurisdiction in<br \/>\ngranting interim stay of operation of the<br \/>\norder of ad-interim injunction to appeal<br \/>\ntill the hearing of the application for<br \/>\nstay after notice to the plaintiff-respon<br \/>\ndents, I may mention that the question<br \/>\nof mainability of the suit filed by the<br \/>\nplaintiffs has not been decided by me in<br \/>\nthis proceeding. The revisional appli<br \/>\ncation, therefore, fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>No order is made as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Calcutta High Court In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Cal 250, 87 CWN 400 Author: A Dutta Bench: A Dutta ORDER Amitabha Dutta, J. 1. This revisional application tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 4-1-83 passed by [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\",\"name\":\"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983","datePublished":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983"},"wordCount":2311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983","name":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-26T21:50:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-re-sankar-kumar-ghosh-vs-unknown-on-24-february-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh vs Unknown on 24 February, 1983"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59742\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}