[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court
Padmavati Tradelink Ltd vs Standard Chartered Bank And Ors on 8 May, 2025
OCD-18
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
CS-COM/297/2024
[OLD NO. CS/159/2021]
IA NO: GA/1/2021, GA-COM/8/2025
PADMAVATI TRADELINK LTD.
VS
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : May 8, 2025
Appearance :
Mr. Tilak Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Suchismita Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Sarawari, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
Ms. Arti Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Aritra Deb, Adv.
... for the defendant no. 1
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Ajayaa Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Anirban Ghosh, Adv.
... for the defendant no. 2
Mr. S. Pal Chaudhuri, Adv.
Ms. Tithi Paul, Adv.
... for the defendant no. 8
Mr. Anil Kumar Dhar, Adv.
...for Intervener
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, Adv.
...for CESC
1.
Mr. Tilak Bose, Learned Senior Counsel, is appearing for the plaintiff.
2. Ms. Arti Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel, is appearing for the
defendant no. 1.
3. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Learned Counsel, is appearing for the defendant
no. 2.
4. Mr. S. Pal Chaudhuri, Learned Counsel, is appearing for the
defendant no. 8.
2
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Dhar, Learned Counsel, is appearing for the
intervener.
6. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, Learned Counsel, is appearing for the
CESC.
7. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that on 7th October, 2021 this Court
has granted interim order in terms of prayer (a) of the injunction
application being GA/1/2021 and the same is continued till date.
8. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant nos. 3 and 4 in
spite of receipt of notices are not appearing. Counsel for the plaintiff
submits that the interim order granted on 7th October, 2021 be confirmed
and also to restrain the defendant nos. 3 and 4 and their officers,
managers, men, servants and agents from transferring, alienating and
creating any third party interest over the suit property. The defendant no.
2 submits that before the interim order passed by this Court dated 7th
October, 2021, the defendant no. 2 has already sold a portion of the
property to the defendant nos. 3 and 4.
9. Considering the above, this Court finds that the interim order granted
earlier was only confined to defendant no. 2, now the defendant no. 2
submitted that defendant no. 2 sold some portion of the property to
defendant nos. 3 and 4 thus the interim order dated 7th October, 2021 is
hereby confirmed. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 are also restrained from
transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest over the suit
property till disposal of the suit.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff submits that at this stage, the plaintiff is
not pressing for any further relief as prayed for in GA/1/2021.
11. In view of the above, GA/1/2021 is disposed of.
3
GA/8/2025
12. The defendant no. 10 has filed an application being GA/8/2025
praying for correcting the miss description of the defendant no. 10 as “ABC
Tea Worker’s Association” instead of “ABC Tea Workers Welfare Services”.
13. He further submits that the defendant no. 10 ABC Tea workers
welfare services is not a society registered under the West Bengal Society
Registration Act but it is a company within the meaning of Section 8 of the
companies Act, 2013 and presently having its Registered Office at House
No. 4, Ward No. 6, Seuj Path, Udaypur, Chowkidingee, Dibrugarh, Assam.
14. Considered the submission made by the Counsel for the defendant
no. 10, perused the application. The department is directed to correct the
name and address of the defendant no. 10 as “ABC Tea Workers Welfare
Services” a company within the meaning Section 8 of the Companies Act
and having the Registered office at House No. 4, Ward No. 6, Seuj Path,
Udaypur, Chowkidingee, Dibrugarh, Assam in the cause title of the plaint
instead of “ABC Tea Worker’s Association” as described in cause title. The
department is directed to correct the name and address of the defendant
no. 10 within three weeks from date. In the application being GA/8/2025,
the defendant no. 10 has also prayed for an order permitting the defendant
no. 10 to surrender its tenancy and handover the possession of the second
floor of the said premises in favour of any person/entity that this Court
may direct.
15. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has no objection if this Court
will pass an order for directing the defendant no. 2 to handover second
floor of the said premises to the plaintiff.
16. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has raised objection and submits that
the suit filed by the plaintiff is mainly connected with the third floor of the
4
premises in question. The second floor is not involved in the matter and as
such this Court cannot pass any order for directing the defendant no. 10 to
handover the second floor of the premises to any of the parties.
17. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that, though the plaintiff has
challenge the deed with respect to the third floor in favour of the defendant
no. 2 but the plaintiff has also prayed for maintenance of the total building
which include second floor of the building.
18. Considering the submission made by the Counsel for the respective
parties, this Court finds that with regard to hand over the possession of the
portion of the second floor of the premises, it would not be proper for this
Court to direct the defendant no. 10 to surrender the said portion to the
particular person. It is open to the defendant no. 10, if the defendant no.
10 is intending to handover the said portion, they can surrender the same
who is having legal right over the property in question.
19. The plaintiff is directed to serve the amended copy of the plaint to all
the parties within two weeks after the amendment is carried out by the
defendant. GA/8/2025 is disposed of.
20. Let CS-COM/297/2024 be placed before this Court on 18th June,
2025.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
DB
[ad_2]
Source link