Dhan Daulat Holding Ltd v. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd

IA No: GA 1 of 2024 APOT No. 96 of 2024 with CS No. 254 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

In appeal from its ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Dhan Daulat Holding Ltd.

Versus

Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd.

Before:

The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI And The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date: 13th March 2024 Appearance:

Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Sananda Ganguli, Advocate Bhagyashree Kanjilal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Pradip Kr. Dutta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Farhan Ghaffar, Advocate Ms. Navneet Bhotika, Advocate Rittick Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Sanjib Mandal, Advocate for the respondent Mr. Diptomoy Talukder, Advocate Mr. Rahul Mukherjee, Advocate for the applicant The Court: Order in terms of prayer (a) of the stay petition. We are in a position to dispose of the appeal today itself dispensing with all formalities.

The impugned judgment and order dated 8th March 2024 has to be set aside for more reasons than one.

The interim order was continuing in the suit. The matter was listed as "To Be Mentioned" before the learned single judge for the purpose of extension of the interim order. Without any change of circumstances having occurred and the court being unable to take up the application for hearing, the interim order ought to have been extended for such period as the learned single judge deemed fit and proper.

The prayer for extension of interim order was not made because of some accommodation being sought by the appellant/plaintiff. It was because the interim order was expiring and the learned judge with regular determination was on leave and unable to take up the matter. In those circumstances, the interim order ought to have been simply extended in a routine manner and ought not to have been extended and conditioned with a direction on the respondent/defendant to pay "50% of the total outstanding dues i.e. Rs.35 lakhs by 14th March, 2024. In default of payment, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated.".

This condition ought not to have been imposed for the additional reason that the entire amount is disputed. For these reasons, we set aside the order dated 8th March 2024. We request the learned single judge to hear out the interim application as early as possible.

We extend the interim order existing prior to 8th March 2024 till 20th March 2024.

Further extension , if any, of the interim order may be prayed before the learned single judge.

All points are kept open. We have not gone into the merits of the matter.

This appeal (APOT 96 of 2024) and the connected application (IA No: GA 1 of 2024) are accordingly disposed of. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose