Authority: Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction – Appellate Side)

Order Date: 29‑09‑2026 (Reserved on 28‑09‑2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Mahijas Infra Private Ltd (private limited company engaged in hotel & restaurant business). Respondent No.11 – Chocolate Hotels Pvt Ltd (wholly‑owned subsidiary of Rose Valley Group). Other respondents include the Union of India, Enforcement Directorate, State of West Bengal, and various statutory bodies.
  • Background: The property in dispute is “Park Prime Hotel”, Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman, originally owned by Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Ltd. An Assets Disposal Committee (ADC) was constituted on 11‑May‑2015 to sell Rose Valley assets, with the condition that no disbursement of proceeds could be made without High Court leave.
  • Management Contract: On 13‑Sep‑2021 Mahijas Infra entered into a Management Agreement with Chocolate Hotels (Lessee/Licensee) to operate Park Prime Hotel for one year (1‑Oct‑2021 to 30‑Sep‑2022) at an occupational charge of Rs 3.35 Lakhs per month, subject to a 10 % annual escalation.
  • Operational Hurdles: Upon taking possession in Oct‑2021 the hotel was shut, with unpaid salary and PF liabilities. Labour staff blocked entry until dues were cleared.
  • Labour Settlement: Mahijas Infra settled labour liabilities of Rs 34,26,521 /- (paid on 4‑Mar‑2022) and also paid Rs 5,00,000 /- to a private security agency.
  • Utility & Tax Payments: Restored electricity by paying Rs 13,57,444 /- to WBSEDCL; cleared municipal holding tax Rs 2,00,000 /-, water tax Rs 26,100 /-, fire licence fees Rs 46,465 /-.
  • Capital Repairs (total outlay Rs 93,27,973 /-): Lift AMC Rs 18,462; DG set repairs Rs 56,238; electronic lock repairs Rs 1,55,760; exterior painting Rs 2,12,842; interior painting Rs 5,51,080; plumbing Rs 1,45,376; furniture & fixtures Rs 6,69,930; kitchen ducting Rs 31,886; gas line & range Rs 28,700; AC & freezer overhauls Rs 1,17,611; water‑pump Rs 12,709; STP repairs Rs 8,050; water‑cooler Rs 12,555; CCTV & DVR Rs 72,100; kitchen drainage & tandoor Rs 16,000; Wi‑Fi Rs 11,800; hot‑water boiler (estimated) Rs 16,00,000.
  • Operational Continuity: Hotel became fully operational in July‑2022; management contract deemed renewed by ADC on 2‑Feb‑2023. Mahijas Infra paid occupational charges up to June‑2024 (including a late payment on 12‑Jun‑2024).
  • Eviction Proceedings: ADC Chairman (Retd.) D.K. Seth issued a letter on 19‑Jun‑2024 directing the District Magistrate, Police Commissioner and ED Joint Director that respondent No.11 would retake possession on 23‑Jun‑2024. Notice received by petitioner on 25‑Jun‑2024.
  • Forceful Possession: On 23‑Jun‑2024, Tuhin Dey (Director, CHPL) arrived with persons identifying as ED officers, locked executive offices, and took physical possession. Corporate records, cheques and cash were locked inside.
  • Petitioner’s Relief Sought: Quash ADC directive and eviction notice; restore possession; award compensation of Rs 1,50,000 per day from 23‑Jun‑2024 till restoration.
  • Respondent No.11’s Contentions:
  • The Management Agreement was a non‑lease service contract for a fixed term; it expired on 30‑Sep‑2022 and was never renewed.
  • The dispute is a private commercial matter, not maintainable under Article 226; specific performance barred under Sections 12 & 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the Indian Contract Act.
  • Mahijas Infra breached contract by unauthorised sub‑letting (agreement with WOW Hospitality Services on 11‑Mar‑2022), unauthorised management contract with Surabhi Management on 20‑Oct‑2023, illegal construction of a two‑storey structure, operation of a restaurant “Eatsin” without fire licence, and involvement in criminal activity (police raid on 10‑Jun‑2023, D.P.S. case No. 271‑2023). Directors were arrested for human trafficking and immoral trade.
  • Financial defaults: occupational charge arrears Rs 5,72,800; unpaid TDS Rs 8,56,000; electricity liability Rs 10,86,867 to WBSEDCL; PF arrears Rs 96,290; ESI dues Rs 26,765; vendor debts Rs 30‑35 Lakhs; travel‑agent commission Rs 4,01,456; other creditors Rs 29,48,036.
  • All legitimate outlays (labour Rs 34,26,521, security Rs 5,00,000, municipal tax Rs 2,00,000) were adjusted against occupational charges; no supplementary agreement existed for the Rs 93,27,973 advance.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The writ petition arises from a private commercial contract; the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to public law matters, not private disputes.
  • The ADC was constituted solely to sell assets and distribute proceeds to victimised depositors; it had no authority to enter into management contracts. Hence the contract with Mahijas Infra is void ab initio.
  • Since the contract expired in Sep‑2022 and was never renewed, the petitioner had no legal right to continue possession.
  • The petitioner’s alleged “unlawful eviction” is therefore a consequence of its own breach and the lawful termination by CHPL under Clause 5.
  • The broader context of the Rose Valley Group’s Ponzi‑type fraud, PMLA attachment, and massive depositor losses underscores the need for efficient asset monetisation.
  • Final Outcome:
  • The writ petition (WPA 17346 2024) is dismissed.
  • No order for restoration of possession or daily compensation is granted.
  • The Asset Disposal Committee (ADC) is ordered to merge with the Justice S.P. Talukdar Committee (JSPTC) after a five‑month extension.
  • The ADC must complete sale of the remaining 21 Rose Valley hotels and disburse the Rs 550 crore held in the depositors’ account by 15‑Nov‑2026, filing monthly compliance reports (first due 17‑Nov‑2026).
  • Post‑merger, the JSPTC’s standard operating procedures for 103 chit‑fund companies will apply to the Rose Valley Group.
  • The Enforcement Directorate is directed to attach any remaining assets and file a fresh report by 19‑Nov‑2026; the SFIO must complete its forensic audit by 31‑Dec‑2026.
  • All parties must act upon the server copy of this judgment downloaded from the Court’s official website.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Asset Disposal, Depositor Restitution