Authority: Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 28‑07‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Refuglent Buildcon LLP; Respondents – K.N. Wire Private Limited (respondent 1‑3) and others including a lessee (respondent 5).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal (F.M.A.T. No.488 of 2025) against an interim order dated 01‑12‑2025 that had only imposed a status‑quo on the suit property.
  • Background:
  • March 2008 – Respondent 1 (borrower) obtained a loan and mortgaged the suit property.
  • April 11‑May 16 2019 – Three registered lease deeds executed by the borrower in favour of respondent 5 for a 30‑year term with renewal clause.
  • 10‑Oct‑2016 – First SARFAESI notice under Section 13(2) issued to borrower; subsequent notices on 21‑Oct‑2021, 18‑Jan‑2022 and 16‑Oct‑2024.
  • 09‑Sep‑2024 – Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a distress warrant for unpaid property tax.
  • 10‑Jan‑2025 – SARFAESI Section 13(4) notice for symbolic possession.
  • 10‑Jul‑2025 – E‑auction notice published; auction date fixed for 19‑Aug‑2025.
  • 20‑Aug‑2025 – Sale Certificate issued in favour of Refuglent Buildcon LLP.
  • 21‑Aug‑2025 – Registered sale deed executed.
  • 10‑Sep‑2025 – Property mutation entered in appellant’s name.
  • 22‑Sep‑2025 – KMC handed over physical possession to appellant after appellant cleared KMC dues.
  • Legal Issues Raised:

1. Whether the appellant holds legally valid possession of the suit property.

2. Whether the respondents have locus standi to challenge the appellant’s title, possession and right to injunction.

3. Whether additional documents may be considered by the appellate court in an appeal against an ad‑interim injunction.

  • Contentions:
  • Appellant argued that the auction sale, sale certificate, deed and mutation gave it settled possession; that SARFAESI Section 14 allowed symbolic possession which later became physical after KMC dues were paid; and that lease deeds were void under SARFAESI Section 13(13) and TP Act Section 65A because they were executed after a Section 13(2) notice and contained prohibited renewal clause and 30‑year term.
  • Respondents contended that the appellant only had symbolic possession, that KMC lacked authority to hand over possession, that the sale certificate did not comply with Appendix‑V/Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules, and that the lease deeds gave them enforceable rights.

Final Outcome

  • The court held that Refuglent Buildcon LLP is in legally valid possession of the suit property, having acquired title through the e‑auction, completed mutation and removed the KMC encumbrance.
  • The lease deeds executed by the borrower are void for contravening SARFAESI Section 13(13) and TP Act Section 65A; consequently, respondents 1‑3 and respondent 5 lack any locus standi to dispute the appellant’s title or possession.
  • The appellate court modified the impugned order of 01‑12‑2025, replacing the blanket status‑quo with a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from trespassing, obstructing entry, or interfering with the appellant’s lawful possession of the suit property until the trial court decides the temporary injunction application.
  • The respondents are directed to file written objections, if any, to the temporary injunction application within three weeks from the date of this order.
  • The trial court is instructed to decide the temporary injunction application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks of receiving this communication.
  • No order as to costs; urgent certified copies to be supplied upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Injunction, Property Possession