Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 15.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Exide Industries Ltd. (and another) filed CO 2084 of 2026 seeking dismissal of an ad interim injunction granted to the opposite party, Dalhousie Holdings Ltd., and others.
  • Opposite Party: Dalhousie Holdings Ltd. (and associated defendants) claimed sole legal ownership of premises No. 13, Debendra Lal Khan Road, Kolkata‑700027, based on a registered deed of conveyance dated 15.02.1962 and a declaration of trust dated 15.11.1962.
  • The trust deed required any change in beneficial interest to be effected through a registered supplemental deed of trust with the plaintiff‑trustee’s participation. Five supplemental deeds were executed between 1962 and 1982, the last on 03.11.1982, allocating 34 “Schedule B” flats among defendants No. 1‑7.
  • From 1982 onward, defendants allegedly transferred their beneficial interests in the flats to third parties via unregistered agreements (e.g., dated 09.10.2015 and 21.06.2008) without the trustee’s knowledge or consent. Defendant No. 8 (Minto Park Syndicate) facilitated these transfers and collected fees.
  • The plaintiff first learned of the unauthorized transfers through a reply dated 10.07.2025 from Defendant No. 1, which disclosed seven such unregistered agreements.
  • The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction; the trial court also granted an ad interim injunction on 20.04.2026.
  • Petitioners (defendants No. 4 and 5) appealed the injunction order (Misc. Appeal No. 114 of 2026) and sought a stay of its operation. The District Judge rejected the stay on 21.05.2026.
  • Senior counsel for petitioners argued that the trial court failed to give notice and did not record reasons as required by the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, contending the injunction was obtained by suppressing a 25.11.1961 agreement.
  • Senior counsel for the opposite party countered that the 5th supplemental deed of 1982 settled the trust structure, that defendants were beneficial owners, and that the injunction should be vacated.
  • The trial judge, after examining the deed of conveyance, trust declaration, KMC property tax receipt (31.03.2026), the defendants’ admission of “limited beneficial interest,” and the unregistered agreements, concluded that:
  • The plaintiff’s title as registered owner and trustee was established.
  • The unregistered agreements were void under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
  • The balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, and any further dealing would cause irreparable loss.
  • Urgency existed because notice to defendants could accelerate further illegal transfers.
  • The appellate court examined whether it was justified in refusing the stay, referencing Supreme Court precedents on injunction principles, the mandatory nature of recording reasons under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3, and the limited scope of appellate interference in interlocutory injunction orders.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held the appellate judge correctly applied the law and therefore dismissed CO No. 2084 of 2026, refusing the petitioners’ prayer for an ad interim stay of the injunction.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The appellate judge was directed to dispose of the pending miscellaneous appeal and related applications expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments.
  • Parties may obtain urgent certified copies upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Injunction Law, Property Trust Dispute