Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 22.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Startrack Agency Private Limited; Opposite Party – Efcalon Tie-Up Private Limited. The dispute stems from an eviction award arising out of a lease of premises No. P‑10, Taratala Road, Kolkata.
  • Procedural History:
  • IA No. 5 of 2026 (Section 47, Order 21 Rule 29, CPC) filed by the petitioner seeking stay of execution of an interim award dated 15.07.2017 (amended 22.07.2017) directing eviction.
  • IA No. 6 of 2026 filed by the opposite party challenging the maintainability of IA 5.
  • The Commercial Court at Alipore dismissed IA 5 and disposed IA 6 (order No. 80 dated 05.06.2026).
  • Earlier arbitration: first award declared the 26.12.2004 licence agreement null and void and awarded Rs 1,51,44,208 to the petitioner; set aside on appeal under Sections 34 & 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
  • Second arbitration resulted in interim award (15.07.2017, corrected 22.07.2017) limited to eviction under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act.
  • The interim award was upheld by the Commercial Court (judgment dated 05.01.2021) and by the Division Bench (order dated 22.04.2025). A Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 32428 of 2025) was dismissed on 01.09.2025.
  • Lease Background: Kolkata Port Trust (later Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port Kolkata) owned the premises. Das Reprographics Ltd., the original lessee, was liquidated in 1994. The Trust was directed (order 09.04.2003, modified 01.12.2004) to execute a lease in favour of Efcalon Tie‑Up upon clearance of arrears. The Supreme Court (08.05.2006) ordered renewal of that lease retroactively from 04.08.2003. A lease deed dated 23.06.2015 was executed for 30 years, retrospective to 04.08.2003.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: The lease deed is illegal, invalid, and fraudulent; the lease terminated due to non‑payment of arrears; the pending title suit (T.S.(Com) 36 of 2022) renders the lease deed unenforceable; therefore, execution of the eviction award should be stayed under Order 21 Rule 29.
  • Opposite Party’s Contentions: Execution proceedings cannot be a forum for reviewing the arbitral award; the petitioner is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questioning the opposite party’s title; the lease deed was validly granted pursuant to the Supreme Court order; all issues were already decided in arbitration and subsequent appeals.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Applied Section 116 of the Evidence Act, finding the petitioner estopped from disputing the opposite party’s title because the petitioner was inducted under the licence agreement dated 26.12.2004.
  • Noted that the Division Bench (20.05.2016, FMAT 744 of 2015) had already held the petitioner could not retain benefits of a void licence and must refund occupation charges.
  • Clarified that Section 64 and 65 of the Contract Act were not applicable as they were not raised in the execution proceedings.
  • Emphasised that the arbitral eviction award had attained finality after dismissal of the Section 34 application (05.01.2021) and the Division Bench order (22.04.2025) and Supreme Court dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (01.09.2025).
  • Stated that under Order 21 Rule 29, a stay may be granted only when the decree is a nullity; mere pendency of a title suit does not satisfy this condition.
  • Referred to Supreme Court precedents (MMTC Ltd. vs. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Ltd., (2026) 3 SCC 99; Electrosteel Steel Ltd. vs. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 7 SCC 773) confirming the narrow scope of objections under Section 47 CPC.
  • Final Outcome: The Civil Revision Application (C.O. 2227 of 2026) is dismissed; no stay of execution is granted; the eviction award remains enforceable; no order as to costs; certified copies may be supplied upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Eviction Award, Lease Validity, Estoppel