Calcutta High Court
Punalur Paper Mills Limited vs Kahm Industries Private Limited & Ors on 15 July, 2026
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
APOT/71/2026
With
CS/149/2021
IA NO. GA/1/2026
Punalur Paper Mills Limited
Vs.
KAHM Industries Private Limited & Ors
&
APOT/73/2026
With
CS/149/2021
IA NO. GA/1/2026
Punalur Paper Mills Limited
Vs.
KAHM Industries Private Limited & Ors
&
APO/17/2026
With
CS/149/2021
IA NO. GA/1/2026
KAHM Industries Private Limited & Ors
Vs.
Punalur Paper Mills Limited
For the Kahm Industries :Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Private Limited Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed
SACHIN byKAHAR
SACHIN
KAHAR Date: 2026.07.15
13:17:20 +05'30'
2
Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Ratan Kakrania, Adv.
Mr. Tanuj Kakrania, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Goenka, Adv.
Ms. Tapashya Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Punalur Paper :Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, Adv.
Mills Limited Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar, Adv.
Mrs. Fatima Hassan, Adv.
Hearing Concluded on : June 16, 2026
Judgement on : July 15, 2026
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
We have heard three appeals being APOT 71 of 2026,
APOT 73 of 2026 and APO 17 of 2026. All three appeals have
emanated out of the judgment and order dated March 31,
2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in GA No. 1 of 2021
and GA No. 4 of 2025 in CS No. 149 of 2021.
2. The defendant to the suit has filed APOT 71 of 2026
and APOT 73 of 2026 while the plaintiff has filed APO 17 of
2026. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeals
are referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title
of the plaint of the suit.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
contended that, the plaintiff was granted a Power of Attorney
dated November 21, 2011 in respect of immovable properties.
He has referred the Power of Attorney and submitted that,
3
such Power of Attorney contains obligation to be discharged
by the respective parties. He has contended that, the Power of
Attorney has become irrevocable.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
contended that, the defendant purported to revoke the Power
of Attorney dated November 21, 2011 on May 11, 2021. He
has referred to such purported revocation of the Power of
Attorney. He has contended that such revocation is bad in
law.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
referred to the litigation between the parties. He has
contended that, the rights between the parties have
crystalized in the order dated April 5, 2022 passed by the
Appeal Court and the order dated September 26, 2022 of the
Supreme Court.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
contended that, since the plaintiff made out a prima facie case
and the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff
and in the event the interim order was not granted, the
plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss of injuries, the learned
Trial Judge did not err in granting interim relief.
4
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has
contended that, the Power of Attorney dated November 21,
2011 was litigation specific. He has referred to such Power of
Attorney and submitted that one particular person, acted as
both a donor and the donee of the Power of Attorney. In
support of such contention, he has referred to the signatures
appearing in the initial sale deed.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has
contended that in 2010, there was change in the shareholding
of the company concerned. He has submitted that, the
defendants are now in charge of control of the vendor of the
immovable properties concerned.
9. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has
contended that, the finding of the learned Single Judge in
paragraph 27 of the impugned judgement and order is
incorrect. He has submitted that, the Power of Attorney dated
the November 21, 2011 is not coupled with any interest. Such
Power of Attorney has superseded the Power of Attorney dated
May 15, 2010. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have any valid
right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property
concerned.
5
10. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has
contended that, the findings of the learned Single Judge in
paragraphs 34 to 38 of the impugned judgement and order are
incorrect. He has submitted that, the Power of Attorney dated
October 15, 2010 is not valid. The plaintiff has no right, title
and interest in respect of the immoveable property concerned
under the Power of Attorney dated May 15, 2010.
11. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has
referred to the judgement and order dated July 5, 2023
passed in CS No. 149 of 2021 and the order No. 70 dated April
6, 2024 passed in Title suit No. 314 of 2021. He has
contended that, the suit was stayed by the learned Single
Judge.
12. Parties before us have been litigating in several fora in
respect of an immovable property and rights in relation
thereto.
13. The present appeal has arisen from the impugned
judgment and order passed in CS No. 149 of 2021. Kahm
Industries Private Limited along with Kunal Dalmia and Ranjo
Roy Chowdhury have filed the suit seeking relief against
Punalur Paper Mills Limited. The plaintiffs in the suit have
6
prayed for decree of delivery and cancellation of the deed of
revocation dated May 11, 2021 of the Power of Attorney dated
November 21, 2011 and a decree for perpetual injunction.
14. The plaintiffs have claimed that, plaintiff No. 1 is the
sole and absolute owner of premises No. 13, Nellie Sengupta
Sarani, Kolkata 700087 by virtue of a registered deed of
conveyance. According to the parties, there have been
acquisition proceedings in respect of the concerned premises.
15. Apart from the deed of conveyance, the parties had
entered into an agreement by which the defendant had
permitted the plaintiff No. 1 to open and operate a bank
account in the name of the defendant for the purpose of
receiving any compensation amount in respect of the
acquisition proceedings. Defendant had also executed a Power
of Attorney on May 15, 2010. Defendant had executed a 2nd
power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 on
November 21, 2011.
16. Plaintiff No. 1 had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 314
of 2021 against the defendant seeking a declaration that the
agreement dated May 15, 2010 is in force and subsisting as
also a decree of declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 has every
7
right to operate and maintain the bank account. Plaintiff No. 1
had filed such suit on March 4, 2021.
17. Defendant had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 613 of
2021 against IndusInd Bank and its manager on May 21,
2021 seeking a declaration that, the defendant alone is
entitled to operate the bank account standing in the name of
the defendant through its authorised signatory along with
other reliefs.
18. In such suit of the defendant, plaintiff No. 1 had been
added as a party defendant by the order dated June 17, 2021
passed in the appeal being FMA No. 377 of 2021.
19. Defendant had filed a counterclaim in Title Suit No.
314 of 2021 on July 16, 2021 claiming a decree of declaration
that, the Agreement dated May 15, 2010 is illegal void and not
binding upon the defendant.
20. Defendant had purported to revoke the Power of
Attorney dated November 21, 2011 on May 11, 2021. Plaintiffs
had filed the present suit in the original side of the High Court
being CS No. 149 of 2021 challenging the revocation of the
Power of Attorney dated May 11, 2021 on August 10, 2021.
8
21. Defendant had filed a suit against the plaintiff No. 1 on
February 21, 2022 being Title Suit No. 430 of 2022 seeking a
decree for delivery up and cancellation of the deed of
conveyance dated April 5, 2003 and for permanent injunction
with regard thereto.
22. Appeal Court had disposed of three appeals directed
against orders passed in Title Suit No. 314 of 2021 and Title
Suit No. 613 of 2021 on April 5, 2022. By order dated April 5,
2022, the appeal Court has held that the cancellation of the
Power of Attorney was illegal and that, documents executed in
favour of the plaintiff no. 1 had established a clear right to
receive the compensation.
23. Plaintiff had filed three separate applications under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Title
Suit No. 314 of 2021, Title Suit No. 613 of 2021 and Title Suit
No. 430 of 2021.
24. Defendant has challenged the order dated April 5,
2022 of the Appeal Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.
By the order dated September 26, 2022, Supreme Court has
directed compliance with the order dated April 5, 2022
requiring to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Trial
9
Court. Supreme Court has also directed that, the amount
should not be withdrawn from the bank account in IndusInd
Bank Limited without permission of the Court.
25. By an order dated July 5, 2023, the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the injunction petition of the plaintiff No.
1 and directed stay of CS No. 149 of 2021 till disposal of the
other pending suits.
26. On appeal, directed against the order dated July 5,
2023, the Appeal Court by the order dated May 16, 2024 had
directed the learned Single Judge to hear and dispose of the
injunction petition.
27. The learned Trial Judge of the City Civil Court had
heard all three suits analogously and allowed the applications
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Learned City Civil Court at Calcutta had rejected the plaint of
Title Suit No. 613 of 2021, Title Suit No. 430 of 2022 and the
counter claim made in Title Suit No. 314 of 2021.
28. Plaintiff No. 1 had applied for operating the bank
account which was allowed by the learned trial Judge in Title
Suit No. 314 of 2021.
10
29. Defendant had preferred three separate appeals
challenging the order dated June 18, 2024, and such appeals
are pending.
30. By the impugned judgement and order, learned Single
Judge has disposed of two applications in CS No. 149 of 2021.
31. In granting relief to the plaintiffs, learned Single Judge,
in the impugned judgement and order, has taken note of the
fact that, the plaintiff No. 1 was exercising rights in respect of
the property in questions since 2003. Learned Single Judge
has taken note of the fact that, disputes arose only after the
acquisition proceedings culminated into the award for the
sum of Rs. 27 crores and odd.
32. Plaintiffs have been litigating in respect of the
concerned property for a considerable period of time. Property
concerned in the suit has been the subject matter of
acquisition proceedings. Such acquisition proceedings have
resulted in an award for the sum in excess of Rs. 27 crores.
33. There is a registered deed of conveyance in favour of
the plaintiff No. 1 in respect of the property concerned. There
are Power of Attorney executed from time to time in favour of
the plaintiffs in respect of the property concerned. A plausible
11
view that, such Power of Attorney is coupled with interest
cannot be overlooked at the interim stage.
34. Defendant has purported to cancel a Power of Attorney
in respect of the property concerned. Plaintiffs have filed a suit
seeking declaration that the purported cancellation of the
Power of Attorney is of no consequence.
35. Pending adjudication of the issues that have arisen
between the parties, it would be appropriate that, the subject
matter of the litigation is protected and preserved.
Consequently, learned Single Judge has granted relief to the
extent and in the manner as noted in the impugned
judgement and order.
36. Learned Single Judge has exercised discretion which
cannot be termed to be perverse. Learned Single Judge has
ascribed reasons for exercise of such discretion which again
cannot be termed as perverse.
37. Parties before us are governed by the order dated April
5, 2022 passed by Appeal Court and the order dated
September 26, 2022 of the Supreme Court. The parties are at
the interim stage in the present appeal as was obtaining
when, orders dated April 5, 2022 by the Appeal Court and the
12
order dated September 26, 2022 were passed by the Supreme
Court.
38. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere
with the impugned judgement and order.
39. APOT No.71 of 2026, APOT No. 73 of 2026 and APO
No. 17 of 2026 along with all connected applications are
disposed of without any order as to costs.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]
40. I agree.
[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]
