Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Itc Ltd vs Dalhousie Holdings Ltd And Ors on 27 July, 2026
27.07.2026
Sl. No.: 4
Court No.7
BM
WPA 2396 of 2026
ITC LTD
VS
DALHOUSIE HOLDINGS LTD AND ORS
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anuj Singh
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Alquaderi
Mr. Aman Khemka
Mr. Naman Chowdhury
Mr. Yash Singhi
... for the petitioner
Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Airban Ray
Mr. Abhishek Gupta
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee
Mr. Subham Saha
Mr. Steven S. Biswas
Mr. Arjun Ray
Mr. Siddharth Singh
... for the respondent no.1
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken
on record.
2. This revisional application is directed against an
order dated July 9, 2026 passed by the learned District
Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in Misc. Appeal
No.174 of 2026.
3. The opposite party no.1 (hereafter “the opposite
party”) has instituted Title Suit No.607 of 2026 before
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court at
Alipore, praying, inter alia, for decrees of declaration
and injunction. In the said suit the opposite party filed
an application seeking temporary injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. The said application was pressed ex-parte for ad-
2
interim reliefs. The learned Trial Court granted ex-parte
ad-interim injunction against the defendants in the suit
on April 30, 2026 and fixed May 20, 2026 as the next
date. The said injunction still subsits upon being
extended from time to time.
4. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.13 in the
suit, has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of
the Code praying for vacation of the ad interim order of
injunction passed by the learned Trial Court. The said
application for vacating the injunction has not yet been
heard and it’s hearing has been postponed till such time
the petitioner produces certain documents in terms of
directions passed by the learned Trial Court on June 01,
2026 on the opposite party’s application under Order 11
Rule 14 of the Code.
5. On May 20, 2026, the petitioner entered
appearance and filed an objection to the opposite party’s
prayer for extension of the interim order of injunction.
6. The said objection against the extension of
injunction order was heard and overruled by the learned
Trial Court by the same order dated June 1, 2026
whereby the petitioner was called upon to produce
documents under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code as
aforesaid. The ad-interim order of injunction thus stood
extended.
7. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
approached the learned Appellate Court by filing Misc.
Appeal No.174 of 2026.
3
8. In the said Misc. Appeal the petitioner filed an
application praying for stay of the order extending the
order of injunction. The said application was taken up
for hearing on July 9, 2026 when after hearing the
parties the learned Appellate Court refused to stay the
order of extension of the ad interim injunction. The
matter has been fixed for hearing today i.e. on July 27,
2026.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order dated July 9,
2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present revisional application.
10. Mr. Mookherjee, learned senior advocate
appearing for the petitioner has taken several points to
assail the order refusing to stay the order extending
injunction as well as the order of extension itself.
11. It has been primarily contended that the order
impugned before the learned Appellate Court could not
have been passed in the teeth of the provisions of
Section 58 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and as such
the same must have been stayed. It has been submitted
that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
difference between “beneficial interest” and “trust
property” as defined under Section 3 of the 1882 Act.
12. Referring to a Judgement of the Hon’ble High
Court at Madras, in the case of S.M. Enayatullah
Saheb vs. S. A. K. Jeelani Saheb reported at AIR
1942 Madras 136. Mr. Mookherjee submitted that in
terms of Section 58 of 1882 Act a beneficiary is
competent to transfer his interest.
4
13. A judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of C.I.T., Hyderabad vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali
Khan Bahadur reported at (1975) 4 SCC 360, was also
cited in support of the contention that a beneficiary,
competent to contract, may transfer his interest subject
to the law for the time being in force, as to the
circumstances and extent in and to which he may
dispose of such interest.
14. He has taken this Court through the Declaration
of Trust executed on August 16, 1961 to indicate that
the expression “Syndicate Members” would include
“Syndicate Members for the time being of the Syndicate
as mentioned” therein.
15. Clause 1 of the said Deed was pressed to
demonstrate that each syndicate member would have
exclusive possession of the flat or flats allocated and
shall be entitled to exercise all rights incident to such
ownership, subject to the restrictions imposed by the
syndicate members.
16. Clause 3 of the said declaration of trust was
shown to assert that upon dissolution of the syndicate,
the trustees would deal with the servient property in
such manner as the syndicate members shall direct and
shall in relation to such property be bound to comply
with the directions of the Syndicate Members.
17. Portions from the Deed of Conveyance dated
June 9, 2017 were also shown to contend that only
beneficial interest as the beneficiary under the trust had
been transferred under the said deed.
5
18. To sum up, it was submitted that the orders
granting injunction and extending the same were
contrary to law.
19. It was then submitted that act of the opposite
party/plaintiff is contrary to the Deed of Declaration
dated August 16, 1961 and that the Trial Court did not
consider Clauses 1 and 2 of the said Deed during
granting or extending the order of injunction.
20. It was further submitted that the Deed of
Declaration does not require the trustee to be a party to
the conveyance and that the trustee was acting contrary
to the interest of the trust in claiming all the properties
as owner thereof. It was next submitted that such act of
trust was in direct contravention of the Section 14 of the
1882 Act. It was also contended that the suit has been
grossly under valued.
21. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior advocate
appearing for the opposite party no.1 supported the
order impugned.
22. It was submitted that the main ad interim order
of injunction has not been challenged and that the
present revisional application mounts challenge only to
a refusal to pass ad interim order of stay on the order of
extension of injunction.
23. It is further submitted that the order impugned
is not in any manner perverse or arbitrary warranting
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
6
24. In order to demonstrate that the Conveyances
executed in recent past have taken a divergent course in
not making the Trustee a party to such conveyances and
in the beneficiary claiming to be owner of the trust
property, Mr. Sundaram placed portions of Deed of
Conveyance dated January 31, 2025.
25. Sections 3 and 13 of the 1882 Act were placed to
demonstrate their scope and applications to the present
case.
26. It is further submitted that when the matter is
returnable before the learned Appellate Court for
hearing of the appeal today itself and the injunction
order has continued for a few months, there is no reason
for this Court to interfere at this stage.
27. Mr. Sundaram submits that the written objection
on behalf of the plaintiff is ready and it shall be filed
before the learned Appellate Court today.
28. Having heard the learned Senior Advocates
appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party, this
Court is of the view that since the matter is already fixed
before the learned Appellate Court today therefore, it
would be proper that the appeal pending before the
learned Appellate Court itself be heard out instead of
this Court hearing this challenge.
29. Mr. Mookherjee and Mr. Sundaram have both
agreed that irrespective of the written objection being
filed today hearing of the appeal should commence
today. The learned Appellate Court is requested to
7
complete the hearing today and if it is not possible then
preferably within at least a week from date.
30. Although arguments made by the learned senior
Advocates appearing for the respective parties have been
recorded summarily, it is clarified that this Court has
not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are
left open to be urged before and decided by the learned
Appellate Court without being influenced by the order
dated July 9, 2026 which has been impugned in the
present revisional application.
31. The Appellate Court would consider the matter
on the basis of materials on record and the submission
made by the parties irrespective of the opinion formed
by the Appellate Court at the prima facie stage when the
order dated July 9, 2026 was passed.
32. The pendency of the appeal will not prevent the
beneficiary of the Trust from taking such steps as may
be available to them in accordance with law.
33. With the aforesaid observation C.O. 2396 of
2026 stands disposed of. No costs.
34. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to
compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
