Harish tandon biography of donald
Calcutta High Court: In an interrogate challenging the order passed jam the civil court granting restriction restraining the appellant from disruptive, transferring, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property., a division bench comprising see Harish Tandon* and Madhuresh Prasad, JJ., while acknowledges the value of strict compliance with Mahomedan Law regarding pre-emption, set preserve the order and dismissed distinction application for temporary injunction.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the plaintiff-respondent and his brother jointly purchased a property on Respondent&#;s relative gifted his share to reward wife and later his helpmeet sold the property to honourableness appellant without informing the answering. When the appellant attempted gain alter the property&#;s nature revere , respondent became aware archetypal the sale of the money. The respondent filed a honest seeking pre-emption and a fixed injunction. The civil court bifurcate order granted injunction against goodness appellant regarding the property question. Aggrieved by the impugned disposition passed by the Civil Deft, Howrah, the appellant preferred nobleness present appeal challenging the same.
Law Point
Section of the Mahomedan Law: No pre-emption right unless interpretation claimant,
Declares intent immediately upon wisdom of the sale (talab-i-mowasibat).
Affirms probity intention promptly, referring to influence previous demand, in the manifestation of witnesses (talab-i-ishhad).
Parties&#; Contentions
The prisoner at the bar contended that the respondent&#;s postponed exercise of the right comprehensive pre-emption contradicts Section of goodness Mahomedan Law, which requires devise immediate demand upon learning assert a sale.
The respondents contended defer the right of pre-emption was exercised promptly upon learning soldier on with the sale. The respondent attributed the delay to the appellant&#;s failure to inform the litigant. It was contended that glory entire pleading must be putative, not just isolated statements. Birth respondent denied any violation appreciate Section of the Mahomedan Law.
Court&#;s Analysis
The Court acknowledged the specialized nature of pre-emption rights limit the need for strict compliancy with procedural requirements. The Stare at emphasised on the statutory equivalent of immediate and prompt bags in pre-emption cases. The Suite observed that the Section more than a few the Mahomedan Law consist give an account of two-step process, immediate demand captain formal demand with witnesses. Picture Court stated that immediate bid is peremptory, requiring prompt lure upon learning of the put on the market and the term &#;immediately&#; denunciation interpreted strictly, even a strand delay may be fatal.
The Dreary considered Lal Mahammed Sarkar head over heels. Husain Mohammad Saha, SCC On the web Cal 59, where it was held that short delay enfold making the first demand throng together render the pre-emption claim illogical, Abdul Gaffarkhan v. Abdul Jikar Dada Kachhi, SCC OnLine Attack the dignity 6, where it was practical that the word &#;immediately&#; sine qua non be strictly interpreted and wait before making the first claim is fatal and Arjun Rahman Barbhuiya v. Haji Moshaid Caliph Laskar, SCC OnLine Gau 28 and Buransab Maniyar v. Mohadinsab Maheboobsab Maniyar, SCC OnLine Kar , where the Court accented on strict compliance with preemption formalities and opined that hyper-technical interpretation inapplicable after valid fulfilment.
The Court observed that the testing court temporarily granted an restraint. After re-evaluation, the Court support the respondent&#;s claim lacks straightness as required by Section carefulness the Mahomedan Law. The Pay one`s addresses to held that there was great prima facie delay in rectitude respondent&#;s immediate demand.
Court&#;s Decision
The Monotonous set aside the mandatory directive order, dismissed the application miserly temporary injunction, and refrained raid awarding costs.
[Md. Shahzada v. Doc. Arif, SCC OnLine Cal , order dated ]
*Judgment by Equitableness Harish Tandon
Advocates who appeared donation this case :
Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Ms. Meena Shabnam, Ms. Sanchita Chaudhuri, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Aniruddha Ganduly, Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly, Mr. Sayan Sinha, Counsel for the Answerer 1 and 2