ADVERTISEMENT
Calcutta High Court
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese Of … vs Creative Consultants on 7 July, 2026
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
OCD-28
In The High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
IA NO. GA-COM/6/2026
In CS-COM/7/2023
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF CALCUTTA AND ORS
VS
CREATIVE CONSULTANTS
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : July 7, 2026.
Appearance :
Mr. Sourath Nath Dutt, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid, Adv.
...for the plaintiffs
Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Somoshree Saha, Adv.
...for the defendant
The Court : This is an eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendant No. 1 and/or defendants. The foundation of the suit is
termination of lease. The lease was allegedly terminated by issuing a notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated May 1 of
2021/October 29, 2021. The notice has been issued only on the ground of
forfeiture, as submitted by Mr. Sourath Nath Dutt, learned Advocate
appearing for the plaintiff.
Whether the eviction suit of this nature shall be considered as a
commercial litigation, the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 4660/2021.
Since, the core issue in this suit is identical with the issue pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that unless the
2
foundation is decided before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hearing of the suit
is required to be adjourned.
Mr. Mainak Bose, learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of
this Court to an order dated June 30, 2026 passed by this Court in CS-
COM/793/2024. He submits that previously also in an identical situation,
hearing of the suit had been adjourned.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case, at
this stage, to adjourn the hearing of the instant application until the issue is
finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The hearing of the application stands adjourned.
Mr. Sourath Nath Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs
submits that occupational charges, as already directed by this court, to be
paid by the defendant, has not been paid. However, such submission is
denied on behalf of the defendant.
Parties to the suit, upon notice to each other, shall be at liberty to
mention the application for further consideration after the issue is finally
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if so advised.
Whenever the instant application shall be mentioned, parties shall
produce a copy of today's order before the Court.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
RS
IA NO. GA-COM/6/2026
In CS-COM/7/2023
A.R., J.
