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

Order Date: 01.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Board of Trustees for the Port of Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port (SMPK) represented by advocates Mr. Subhankar Nag and Mr. Abhishek Banerjee.
  • Opposite Party: M/s. Vijai Shree Private Limited represented by advocates Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Mr. Arnab Kumar Ghosh, Mr. P. Manot and Mr. Niraj Tiwari.
  • The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (C.O. 2189 of 2026) challenging an order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, First Track Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 161 of 2022.
  • The impugned order directed the Estate Officer of SMPK to remove a padlock placed on the disputed property and to await final adjudication of the appeal.
  • Background: The opposite party had earlier appealed Order No. 16 dated 11.08.2022 (issued by the Estate Officer of SMPK in proceeding No. 1888/1888R of 2021). A stay of operation was granted on 19.11.2022 and extended repeatedly until 29.01.2025, after which no further extension was obtained.
  • On 03.06.2025 the opposite party sought an extension of the stay till disposal of the appeal; the application was kept on record.
  • The extension request was rejected on 10.09.2025.
  • The opposite party then approached this Court, which on 15.12.2025 directed an unconditional status‑quo with respect to the nature, character and possession of the suit property till 10.01.2026, and further for a period of five months or until disposal of the appeal, whichever was earlier.
  • The hearing of the appeal commenced on 17.06.2026.
  • SMPK took possession of the suit property on 16.06.2026.
  • Pursuant to an order dated 19.06.2026 in WPA 13489 of 2026, SMPK filed an application for removal of the padlock; the appellate court disposed of it on 01.07.2026 directing the Estate Officer to remove the padlock forthwith.
  • SMPK, aggrieved, approached this Court.
  • Arguments by SMPK (advocate Mr. Nag): No injunction was subsisting on 16.06.2026; the opposite party failed to extend the interim order; mere pendency of an appeal does not constitute a stay unless expressly ordered. Relied on Supreme Court judgments: Arjun Singh vs. Punit Ahluwalia (2008 8 SCC 348), Kishor Kumar Khaitan vs. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006 3 SCC 312), and Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990 2 SCC 117). Asserted that mandatory interlocutory injunctions are granted only in exceptional cases.
  • Arguments by Vijai Shree (advocate Mr. Bhattacharjee): The interim order had been extended; SMPK’s padlock interfered with the due course of justice; cited Pratap Singh vs. Gurbak Singh (AIR 1962 SC 1172), Indian Cable Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty (AIR 1985 Cal 248), and Express Newspaper Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (1986 1 SCC 133). Asserted that SMPK acted in bad faith and misused statutory power.
  • The Court examined the chronology of orders: the status‑quo order of 15.12.2025 remained in force until at least 15.05.2026 (or 10.06.2026 if computed from 10.01.2026). Despite this, SMPK took possession on 16.06.2026, one day before the hearing fixed for 17.06.2026.
  • The Court held that the possession taken on 16.06.2026 violated the standing status‑quo and constituted a wrongful act.
  • Citing Indian Cable Company Ltd. (division‑bench) and Dorab Cawasji Warden (Supreme Court), the Court affirmed that when status‑quo is altered by a wrongful act, the Court may restore the status‑quo ante via a mandatory injunction, even at the interlocutory stage.
  • The Court rejected SMPK’s contention that no injunction existed, emphasizing that the appellate court’s order of 17.06.2026 extended the earlier status‑quo and that SMPK’s unilateral action was impermissible.
  • The Court concluded that the appellate judge was correct in directing the Estate Officer to remove the padlock forthwith.

Final Outcome

  • The petition (CO 2189 of 2026) is dismissed.
  • The order dated 01.07.2026 directing removal of the padlock stands affirmed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • A subsequent prayer for stay of operation of this judgment was denied.

Topics: Property Law, Injunction