Lahiri & Saha (No 8)

Ms Saha applied for an extension of time to comply with the property enforcement order and for the matter to be transferred to a different judge. The application was opposed by Mr Lahiri and Mr Feltos. The application was dismissed, the time for compliance with the order was extended, and Ms Saha was ordered to pay costs to the respondents. Ms Saha argued that the bankruptcy trustee, Mr Feltos, was in breach of trust and that the orders could not be enforced until the Supreme Court ruled on this matter. The court rejected this argument and ordered Ms Saha to vacate the property by 7 December 2023. If she failed to do so, a warrant for possession was to be issued. Ms Saha also argued that the costs claimed by Mr Feltos were excessive and that his engagement in the litigation was a "cost scam." The court rejected this argument and ordered Ms Saha to pay costs to Mr Feltos.

The court considered the arguments of the parties and the relevant law. The court found that the bankruptcy trustee was not in breach of trust and that the orders could be enforced. The court also found that the costs claimed by Mr Feltos were reasonable and that his engagement in the litigation was not excessive. The court ordered Ms Saha to pay costs to Mr Feltos and the husband.