The case of late Mr. Brij Ratan Mohta versus Amarendra Kumar Singh was litigated by Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry. He was handling the case on behalf of the petitioner the late Mr. Brij Ratan Mohta. While the case was ongoing, Mr. Mohta passed away and the case was handled further by his sons.
What is the issue?
The issue at hand was an ongoing case—a dispute that was continuing for several years. The dispute was over the ‘wrongful possession’ of the premises that rightfully belonged to the Mohta family. There was a court order and the Late Mr. Brij Ratan Mohta then argued that the respondent party ‘illegally and wrongfully’ occupied the said premise. While the case was ongoing, Mr. Brij Ratan Mohta passed away. The case was continued by his sons. A learned judge who was hearing the case ordered the respondent to vacate the premise and hand over the vacant premise to the petitioner—the Mohta family. The matter started since the year 1997. The Court ruled that the respondent must pay the damages to the petitioner at the present market rental rate with effect from April 1, 1997. The possession must also be delivered within four weeks of the said communication. Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry, who was the primary Defence Lawyer of the petitioner, was particularly agitated over the matter that the case was long drawn since the year 1997.The dispute caused great misery to the Mohta family according to senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kshetry. Advocate Kshetry was worried in case the petitioners do not get their due compensation on time. Hence, Advocate Kshetry argued in court and ensured that the petitioners receive their due compensation on time. The Court after hearing Advocate Kshetry, ordered that the respondents must pay the due compensation amount on time, failing which they will have to pay the interest at 10% per annum.
Along with Amarendra Singh, the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority is to be equally blamed for holding back the property of the writ petitioner. The period for paying the compensation was extended for 2 months. According to Advocate Kshetry, this extension of the compensation period is still acceptable. “Citing the term period for compensation should be clear and definite so that no confusion arises in the future. Extension of 2 months time is justified. We are being too lenient.” Claimed Advocate Kshetry.
The alleged contemnors or respondents submitted a petition that they were not in a position to vacate the premises and if made to do so forcibly, will undergo great difficulties. “After hearing of their difficulties and assessing the same by the court, it was termed ‘inhuman’ to forcibly vacate the respondents. Therefore, I valuated the premise and ensured that the equal amount be paid to the petitioner—the Mohta family.” Claimed Advocate Kshetry. The Mohta family agreed of receiving the compensation in lieu of their premise.
“Finally, a long drawn case was solved under the guidance of Advocate Kshetry. We are very thankful to him. We have seen how he worked hard to guide us throughout the dispute. We were really clueless and heart-broken after our father passed away. But Advocate Kshetry stood by us with his utmost perseverance and dedication. I have seen many lawyers talk of justice but Advocate Kshetry is one of the few who work for justice! We are greatly indebted to Advocate Kshetry.” exclaimed Mr. Mohta, son of the Late Mr. Brij Ratan Mohta.