Calcutta High Court
M. P. Birla Netralaya And Ors vs Asim Chattopadhyay And Ors on 20 July, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-9 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/1/2026
IN
CS/44/2026
M. P. BIRLA NETRALAYA AND ORS.
VS
ASIM CHATTOPADHYAY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 20th July, 2026.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv., Mr. Naman Choudhury, Mr. Debartha Chakraborty,
Ms. Siddhi Agarwal, Mr. Sagar Dutta, Advocates for the plaintiffs/petitioners.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Mr.
Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Mr.
Sanket Sarawgi, Mr. Altamash Alim, Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Mr. Samriddha Sen, Advocates
. . . for defendant nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sayan Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Mr. Navneet Misra,
Mr. Bhavesh Garodia, Advocates for defendant no.1.
THE COURT: In this suit the plaintiffs have challenged the validity of the
notice dated 6th July, 2026 with the proposed agenda contained therein for
holding a meeting of the plaintiff no.1 on 13 th July, 2026. The meeting has
been convened on 13th July, 2026 as submitted by the defendants and the
resolution in respect of the various agenda contained in the notice dated 6 th
July, 2026 has been taken at the said meeting. The plaintiffs say that the
person who has issued the notice, namely, the defendant no.1 is a stranger
and complete outsider to the plaintiff no.1 trust and as such had no locus to
2
issue the notice dated 6th July, 2026. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that
at least one agenda being serial no.2 in the notice dated 6 th July, 2026 could
not have been put up for consideration as there is an ad interim order of
injunction issued by the District Court at Alipore on 21 st April, 2025 which is
still in subsistence.
The defendants say that the meeting has already been convened and
resolution in respect thereof has not only been taken but have also been acted
upon. So far as the agenda no.2 is concerned, it is the case of the defendants
that the order of the District Court at Alipore dated 21 st April, 2025 does not
stand in the way of either convening the meeting or taking a decision in respect
thereof.
After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I find
that there is no urgency in the matter for passing an order of injunction as
prayed for by the plaintiffs since the meeting has already taken place. The suit
has been instituted challenging the notice dated 6 th July, 2026 as also the
agenda contained therein which was put up for consideration in terms of the
said notice. The validity of any decision taken in the meeting dated 13 th July,
2026, therefore, shall be open to scrutiny by Court at the final hearing of the
matter when the same can either be stayed or reversed if an appropriate case is
made out. So far as agenda no.2 contained in the notice dated 6 th July, 2026 is
concerned, any act done in the teeth of an order of injunction is an invalid act
as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1994) 2
SCC 266 (Satyabrata Biswas Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku). In the event the
resolution as contained in serial no.2 has been put for discussion and voting in
3
violation of the order dated 21st April, 2025, the same is an invalid act and is
nullity. Any act of such nature, therefore, will be set aside, if the Court finds it
to be contrary to the orders passed by the Court.
Let affidavits be exchanged.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 14th August, 2026; reply thereto, if
any, be filed by 3rd September, 2026. Matter to appear in the monthly list of
September, 2026.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
pa
