Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
Order Date: 29.09.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant – Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited (defendant‑no. 1); Respondents – Dr. Sujoy Kumar Sanyal and another (plaintiff‑respondent no. 1).
- Proceedings: Appeal (F.M.A.T. No. 345 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026) against an ex‑parte ad interim injunction dated 18 Aug 2026 (Order no. 2) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fifth Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 1226 of 2026.
- Background: Plaintiff‑respondent 1, a senior neurosurgeon, claimed an oral agreement from Nov 2005 governing his professional association with the hospital. He sought specific performance, cancellation of a termination/pre‑closure notice dated 18 May 2026 (Ref No. NH/RTICS/HR/2026/314), declaration that a written agreement dated 2 Apr 2025 was never executed, and a permanent injunction.
- Interim Relief Sought: Temporary injunction restraining the hospital and its agents from enforcing the alleged 2 Apr 2025 agreement and the 18 May 2026 notice, and from preventing the doctor’s access to outdoor patients and the hospital premises.
- Defendant’s Contentions: Suppression of material facts, existence of multiple written agreements (including a November 4 2005 offer letter), plaintiff’s email in May 2026 conceding to the termination, lack of a specific date for the oral agreement, and that the suit is not maintainable under Sections 14(c), 14(d) and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as amended).
- Plaintiff’s Contentions: Importance of his services to patients, insufficiency of a three‑month notice, and that the oral agreement required mutual consent for termination.
- Legal Precedents Cited: Percept D'Mark (India) Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan (2006 4 SCC 227), Purna Chandra Das v. Warren Industrial Ltd. (1991 SCC OnLine Cal 183), Akshay Vinimay LLP v. Neeraj Bajoria (FMA No. 250 2026), Muktakesi Dawn v. Haripada Mazumdar (AIR 1988 Cal 25), Jitesh Pandey v. Urmilata Sinha (1999 SCC OnLine Cal 460), and Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary (AIR 2003 Cal 96).
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the suit for specific performance of a contract for personal medical services is barred under SRA 1963 §§14(b), 14(c), 14(d) and 41(e); consequently, the plaintiff had no prima facie case for an injunction.
- The ex‑parte ad interim injunction dated 18 Aug 2026 is set aside; the appeal succeeds.
- FMAT No. 345 2026 is allowed on contest, and CAN 1 2026 is consequentially disposed of.
- No order as to costs.
- The trial judge is directed not to be influenced by these findings and to decide the temporary injunction application and the suit on their own merits.
- Defendants must file written objections by 15 Oct 2026; the trial court should dispose of the injunction application preferably within one month after the court’s annual vacation.
- Photocopies of the judgment may be supplied upon compliance with formalities.
Topics: Legal Judgment, Specific Relief Act