Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: July 17, 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant Jokhiram Baijnath vs. Respondent No.1 Kailash Kumar and Brothers (and anr.). The Board of Major Port Authority, Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata is also a material party.
- Background: The appellant holds a tenancy of 12,379.88 sq m at Hide Road, Kolkata, granted by the Board on October 4, 2001 for a period of 30 years. An eviction and mesne‑profit decree was passed against the appellant on August 5, 2022 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
- The appellant filed a statutory appeal against the eviction decree; the appeal is pending. The respondent sought addition of the Board as a party in that appeal.
- An agreement dated April 2, 2023 between the appellant and respondent No.1 licensed the respondent to use a portion of the property as storage space for tea, goods, materials and articles in the ordinary course of business.
- The trial court had earlier granted an injunction (Order No.2 dated June 15, 2026) restraining the appellant from disturbing the peaceful working of respondent No.1’s business and from creating any third‑party interest in the suit property until July 15, 2026, conditional on respondent No.1 initiating arbitration within 90 days.
- The appellant argued that the dispute is a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and that the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was improperly filed before a civil court, rendering the injunction a nullity. The appellant also contended that the Board was unnecessarily made a party to the arbitration petition and that the dispute is non‑arbitrable under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
- The respondent sought to file affidavits and to be added as a party in the pending appeal.
- The Board asserted that it gave unencumbered possession to the appellant and that the appellant is obliged to return unencumbered possession; it also reiterated the eviction decree against the appellant.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the factual matrix and the relationship between the parties are admitted and that the dispute relates to an immovable commercial property.
- It concluded that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act were not before a Commercial Court as required by Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; consequently, the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The impugned injunction order dated June 15, 2026 is declared a nullity and is set aside.
- The matter (FMA 804 of 2026 and IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026) is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Topics: Legal Judgment, Commercial Lease Dispute