Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 15.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Dinesh Soni and others (78 apartment owners of Sunrise Towers); Respondents – Pramod Kumar Pansari and others (Secretary, President, Treasurer and other members of the Sunrise Towers Apartment Owners Association).
  • Background: On 5 May 2026, 78 owners requisitioned a Special General Meeting (SGM) to remove the incumbent President, Secretary and Treasurer and to consider dissolution/reconstruction of the Board of Managers (BoM). The requisition was reiterated on 22 May 2026 after the initial notice expired.
  • Competent Authority (CA) order dated 27 May 2026 held the first notice valid and directed that the SGM agenda be taken up first at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) scheduled for 31 May 2026, with the senior‑most non‑defaulting member to preside.
  • Respondents filed Suit No. 1123 of 2026 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta on 29 May 2026, seeking declaration that the notices of 5 May and 22 May were illegal, ultra‑vires, and that the CA order was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, along with permanent injunctions restraining the appellants from conducting any SGM or acting on its resolutions.
  • The trial judge refused an ad‑interim injunction on 29 May 2026, citing Section 80(2) CPC, and later, on 31 May 2026, the AGM was held where the three office‑bearers were removed.
  • On 1 June 2026, respondents filed another injunction application under Section 94(e) & 151 CPC, seeking restraint on any recognition of the resolutions passed at the “fractured assembly” on 31 May 2026. The trial judge granted a blanket injunction restraining any meeting of the Association, which was subsequently extended multiple times.
  • Appeals (FMA 816, 951, 952, 1186 of 2026) were filed challenging the CA orders of 27 May 2026 and 6 August 2026, and the series of injunction orders dated 1 June, 29 June, 17 July and 7 September 2026.
  • Key legal arguments centered on:
  • Whether the CA had jurisdiction under the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and the 2022 Bye‑laws to direct the conduct of specific meetings.
  • Interpretation of Bye‑law clauses: BL 10 (removal of Managers), BL 11 (disqualification of defaulting members), BL 13 (removal of office‑bearers), and BL 6(2) (right of one‑third members to requisition an SGM).
  • Validity of the requisition notices (quorum of one‑third of 192 members = 64; even after discounting up to five questionable signatories, 73 remained, satisfying quorum).
  • Whether the injunctions granted exceeded the prayers made by the plaintiffs and were therefore ultra vires.
  • Non‑joinder of all 78 signatories as parties to the suit and its effect on the maintainability of the injunctions.
  • The Court examined the statutory powers of the CA:
  • Section 10A and 13 of the 1972 Act relate to declarations and framing Bye‑laws, not day‑to‑day functioning.
  • Section 16B(1) permits directions only when the Manager/BoM fails to perform functions; the CA had not found such failure.
  • BL 39 allows the CA to issue guidelines for general difficulties, not specific directions for particular meetings.
  • Consequently, both CA orders (27 May and 6 August 2026) were held de hors jurisdiction and void.
  • The Court held the notices of 5 May and 22 May 2026 to be valid under BL 6(2) because the President’s refusal to convene the meeting shifted the authority to the requisitioning members, satisfying the statutory requisition requirement.
  • The blanket injunction restraining the appellants from conducting any meeting was found to be beyond the specific prayers of the plaintiffs and therefore invalid.
  • The principle of res judicata was applied to the second injunction application, noting that the earlier refusal of ad‑interim relief covered the same relief sought later.
  • Non‑joinder of the remaining signatories was deemed a procedural defect but not fatal to the grant of interim relief; however, the suit’s lack of representation for all signatories rendered it vulnerable.

Final Outcome

  • All appeals (FMA 816, 951, 952, 1186 2026) are allowed, setting aside the CA orders of 27 May 2026 and 6 August 2026 and the injunction orders dated 1 June, 29 June, 17 July and 7 September 2026.
  • The application linked to CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain urgent certified copies of the judgment upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Apartment Ownership, Competent Authority Jurisdiction