Authority: Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division
Order Date: 29.09.2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Orient Trading and Investment Co. (Appellant) vs United Consultants (India) LLP (Respondent).
- Case Numbers: APOT/167/2026, IA No. GA-COM/1/2026; related trial suit CS‑COM/43/2026.
- Nature of Proceeding: Appeal against the order dated 14 July 2026 which refused an ex‑parte ad interim injunction in an eviction suit.
- Background: The appellant filed a suit for eviction alleging the respondent, as lessee, failed to vacate premises despite a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dated 24 December 2024. The trial judge held that the maintainability of such a suit in the Commercial Division was pending before the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 4660 of 2021) and therefore denied the interim injunction.
- Legal Submissions: The appellant relied on precedent:
- 2026 SCC Online Cal 8715 (Xclusive Inn Private Ltd. v. Anjana Guha) – the Coordinated Bench held the lease agreement must be examined to assess the validity of a Section 106 notice.
- 2025 SCC Online Cal 5076 (T.E. Thomson & Co. Ltd. v. Swanalatha Chopra) – a Special Bench decision binding on Division and Single Judges, stating that lease agreements are relevant to characterising the dispute as commercial under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Reference to Amicus Curiae: In T.E. Thomson, Amicus Curiae Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra answered:
- Q(a): Whether after a Section 106 notice the lease agreement cannot be relied upon? Answer – No; the lease must be examined.
- Q(b): Whether a suit solely under Section 106 precludes the court from looking at the lease and thus cannot be a commercial suit? Answer – No.
- Q(c): Whether the Explanation Clause of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, together with Section 106, allows the suit to be treated as commercial? Answer – Yes.
- Higher Court References: A Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 26786 of 2026) – Xclusive Inn v. Anjana Guha – was disposed on 12 August 2026, with the Supreme Court declining to interfere with the Coordinated Bench’s order.
Final Outcome
- The High Court held the appeal maintainable and set aside the impugned order dated 14 July 2026.
- The injunction petition is remanded to the learned Trial Judge for fresh consideration, notwithstanding the pending Supreme Court reference.
- The order clarifies that a pending Supreme Court decision does not bar the High Court from applying binding precedent and adjudicating on interim relief.
Topics: Legal Precedent, Commercial Courts