Authority: High Court (Court No.7 BM), Justice Om Narayan Rai

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner ITC Ltd (defendant No.13) vs. respondent Dalhouise Holdings Ltd and others (opposite party).
  • Underlying dispute: Title Suit No.607 of 2026 filed by the opposite party before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court at Alipore, seeking declaration and injunction over trust‑related property.
  • On 30 April 2026 the Trial Court granted an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction against the defendants; the injunction was subsequently extended, with the next date fixed for 20 May 2026.
  • The petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction; hearing postponed pending production of documents as directed on 1 June 2026 under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC.
  • On 20 May 2026 the petitioner objected to the opposite party’s request for further extension; the objection was overruled on 1 June 2026 and the injunction was extended again.
  • The petitioner appealed (Misc. Appeal No.174 of 2026) to the Appellate Court, seeking a stay of the extension order. The Appellate Court, on 9 July 2026, refused the stay.
  • Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revisional application (WPA 2396 of 2026) before this Court.
  • Key legal contentions raised by petitioner’s counsel (Sr. Adv. S. N. Mookherjee) included:
  • The order extending the injunction contravenes Section 58 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which allows a beneficiary to transfer his interest.
  • Misinterpretation by the Trial Court of “beneficial interest” vs. “trust property” under Section 3 of the Act.
  • Reliance on Madras High Court judgment (S.M. Enayatullah Saheb vs. S.A.K. Jeelani Saheb, AIR 1942 Madras 136) and Supreme Court judgment (C.I.T., Hyderabad vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur, (1975) 4 SCC 360) supporting the beneficiary’s right to transfer interest.
  • Examination of the Declaration of Trust dated 16 August 1961 (clauses 1 and 3) and Deed of Conveyance dated 9 June 2017, asserting that only beneficial interest, not legal title, was transferred.
  • Claim that the injunction and its extension are contrary to the trust deed and Section 14 of the 1882 Act, and that the suit is grossly undervalued.
  • Respondent’s counsel (Sr. Adv. C. A. Sundaram) argued:
  • The main injunction order has not been challenged; the revisional petition only seeks a stay of the extension order.
  • The order is not perverse or arbitrary and does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
  • Recent conveyances (Deed of Conveyance dated 31 January 2025) show the trustee is not a party, supporting the beneficiary’s claim of ownership.
  • Sections 3 and 13 of the 1882 Act were cited to demonstrate their applicability.
  • Since the matter is already before the Appellate Court, there is no reason for this Court to intervene at this stage.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the appeal is already scheduled before the Appellate Court on the same day and directed that the appellate proceedings continue without this Court’s interference.
  • Both senior counsels agreed that the appellate hearing should commence immediately or within a week.
  • The Court expressly stated it has not examined the merits and left all points for determination by the Appellate Court.
  • Consequently, revisional application C.O. 2396 of 2026 is disposed of with no costs awarded.
  • An urgent certified copy of the order may be supplied to parties upon proper application.

Topics: Injunction, Trust Law