Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side)

Order Date: July 15, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Punalur Paper Mills Limited (plaintiff) vs. KAHM Industries Private Limited and others (defendants).
  • Appeals: APOT 71 of 2026, APOT 73 of 2026 (filed by the defendants) and APO 17 of 2026 (filed by the plaintiff), all arising from the judgment and order dated March 31, 2026 in GA No. 1 of 2021 and GA No. 4 of 2025, CS No. 149 of 2021.
  • Core dispute: A Power of Attorney (PoA) executed on November 21, 2011 in favour of the plaintiffs concerning immovable property; the defendants alleged revocation of this PoA on May 11, 2021, which the plaintiffs contested as legally ineffective.
  • Background facts:
  • The plaintiffs claim sole ownership of premises No. 13, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata 700087, based on a registered deed of conveyance dated April 5 2003.
  • An agreement dated May 15 2010 allowed the plaintiff to operate a bank account in the defendant’s name for compensation proceeds from acquisition proceedings.
  • The defendants executed a second PoA on November 21 2011 in favour of the plaintiffs and later purported to revoke it on May 11 2021.
  • Multiple suits were filed:
  • Title Suit No. 314 of 2021 (plaintiff) seeking declaration that the May 15 2010 agreement remains in force and that the plaintiff may operate the bank account (filed March 4 2021).
  • Title Suit No. 613 of 2021 (defendant) against IndusInd Bank seeking exclusive right to operate the account (filed May 21 2021).
  • Title Suit No. 430 of 2022 (defendant) seeking cancellation of the deed of conveyance dated April 5 2003 and permanent injunction (filed February 21 2022).
  • The Appeal Court, on April 5 2022, held that the cancellation of the PoA was illegal and that documents favouring the plaintiff established a clear right to compensation.
  • The Supreme Court, on September 26 2022, directed compliance with the Appeal Court’s order, requiring security to be furnished and prohibiting withdrawal from the IndusInd Bank account without court permission.
  • The learned Single Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s injunction petition on July 5 2023 and stayed CS 149 of 2021 pending other suits; the Appeal Court later directed the Single Judge to hear the injunction petition (order dated May 16 2024).
  • The City Civil Court, Calcutta, heard all three suits analogously, allowing applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, rejecting Title Suit No. 613 of 2021, Title Suit No. 430 of 2022, and the counter‑claim in Title Suit No. 314 of 2021.
  • The plaintiff was allowed to operate the bank account in Title Suit No. 314 of 2021.
  • The defendants filed three separate appeals challenging the order dated June 18 2024; those appeals remain pending.
  • The impugned judgment and order (dated June 16 2026, pronounced July 15 2026) disposed of two applications in CS 149 of 2021, granting interim relief to the plaintiffs, noting that the plaintiff had been exercising rights over the property since 2003 and that acquisition proceedings resulted in an award exceeding Rs 27 crore.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed all three appeals (APOT 71/2026, APOT 73/2026, APO 17/2026) without any order as to costs.
  • The court affirmed the earlier orders of the Appeal Court (April 5 2022) and the Supreme Court (September 26 2022), thereby upholding the validity of the PoA dated November 21 2011 and the plaintiffs’ right to the immovable property and related compensation.
  • No perverse exercise of discretion was found; the interim relief granted to the plaintiffs remains in force pending final resolution of the pending suits.

Topics: Property Law, Power of Attorney