Calcutta High Court
Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd. And Ors vs Orient Beverages Limited on 20 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
EC/20/2025
IA NO: GA/2/2025
SQUARE FOUR ASSETS MANAGEMENT AND
RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD. AND ORS
VS
ORIENT BEVERAGES LIMITED
For the Decree Holder : Mr. Ratnanko Banaerji, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sristi Barman Roy, Adv.
Ms. Sudipta Paul, Adv.
For the Judgment Debtor : Mr. Kaushik Banerjee
For the Petitioner
in GA/2/2025 : Mr. Rahul Singh
For the Receiver : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Dhar
Ms. Arpita Das Jana
Heard and Judgment on : 20.07.2026
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1.
The present execution application invites the Court to give practical effect to
a decree that has already traversed the entire spectrum of adjudication and
has attained finality.
2. The trustees, by a registered indenture executed on 29th September, 1965,
granted a lease for a period of fifty years in favour of Alepe Finance Limited,
presently known as Orient Beverages Limited. Upon expiry of the leasehold
2
tenure, the trustees, acting as lessors, executed a registered indenture dated
12th September, 2015 in favour of Decree Holder No.1, whereunder the
specified portion of the premises was demised with effect from 1st October,
2015.
3. The judgment debtor, by its own communication dated 1st October, 2015,
acknowledged that the lease had expired and declared that possession of the
premises had been handed over to the decree holders. The said admission
constituted the foundation of G.A. No. 20 of 2022 in C.S. No. 144 of 2016,
culminating in the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 2022 whereby a
decree of eviction came to be passed, which continued to remain operative
and binding on every person whose possession traced its origin to the estate
of the judgment debtor.
4. Subsequent thereto, Decree Holder No.1 called upon the judgment debtor to
deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the entirety of the leasehold
premises. In response, the judgment debtor disclosed several portions of the
property continued to remain occupied by various tenants and occupiers. It
furnished particulars of occupants covering an area measuring 6569 square
feet while simultaneously recording another portion measuring 5533 square
feet remained occupied by several persons whose identities were not within
its knowledge. The present execution proceeding has therefore been
instituted to secure delivery of possession of the remaining decretal premises
measuring 5533 square feet, thereby accomplishing recovery of the entire
decretal area measuring 12,102 square feet.
3
5. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the Learned Special Officers
have conducted a physical inspection of the premises and have submitted a
comprehensive report dated 11th of March, 2026. The report reflected the
Learned Advocates representing the decree holders and the judgment debtor
remained present throughout the inspection. Although notice had been
served upon the intervenors, none appeared at the time of inspection. The
Special Officers inspected every portion that remained accessible, recorded
approximate measurements of areas lying beyond immediate access,
identified the occupiers wherever practicable, segregated those who had
approached this Court from those who had chosen not to invoke its
jurisdiction, and furnished a detailed account enabling precise identification
of the remaining decretal property.
6. The substantial portion of the report delineating the relevant assessment
concerning the respective portions are replicated as follows:-
“SEGREGATING LIST OF TENANTS/OCCUPIERS WHO HAD NOT FILED ANY
APPLICATION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT :
1. Monoj Kumar Bhagat It was closed and approximate occupying area
occupying area 70 Sq.ft. at Basement near
building.
2. Raja Chatterjee It was closed and approximate occupying area 112
Sq.ft. at Basement near building.
3. Bikash Khanna It was opened and co-operated us and approximate
occupying area 504 Sq.ft. at ground floor building.
4. Pintu Saha It was closed and approximate occupying area 140
Sq.ft. at ground floor near building.
4
5. Pintu Saha It was closed and approximate occupying area 200
Sq.ft. at ground floor near building.
6. Sundar Lal It was closed and approximate occupying area 450
Sq.ft. at basement of the building.
7. LT Elevator It was closed and approximate occupying area 180
Sq.ft. at ground floor of the building.
8. Mani Gupta It was closed and nobody was there approximate
Occupying area 110 Sq.ft. at the ground floor of the
building.
9. Mani Gupta It was closed and nobody was there approximate
occupying area 400 Sq.ft. at the ground of the
building.
10. Anil Kumar Goyal Area vacant under the possession of decree
holder and approximate area is 140 Sq.ft. at 1st
floor front side of the building.
11. B. Chiranjeevi Area vacant under the possession of decree holder
and approximate area is 291 Sq.ft. at 8 th floor
of the building.
12. Sanjeev Gupta Area vacant under the possession of decree holder
and approximate area is 400 Sq.ft. at the roof front
portion of the building.
13. Balbir Prasad Gupta Area vacant under the possession of decree
holder and approximate area is 400 Sq.ft. at the
roof front of the building.
Total = 3397 Sq.ft.”
7. The list of tenants/occupiers in G.A. No.1 of 2025, inter alia, stated as
follows:-
1. Ankit Agarwal, son of Late Binod Kumar Physically found at
Agarwal of premises no.50, Chowringhee basement front portion
5Road, Kolkata-700071. of the building and
approximate occupied
area 80 Sq.ft.
2. Mili Roy, wife of Late Dipake Roy of premises Physically found at
No.50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. basement front portion
of the building and
approximate occupied
area 30 Sq.ft.
3. Naqi Raza and Nikhat Raza of premises Physically found and
No.50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. approximate occupied
area 154 Sq.ft. at
basement of the
building.
4. Shamim Akhtar, son of Mohmaddin Khan, of Physically found at
premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, basement of the
Kolkata-700071. building and
approximate occupied
area 64 Sq.ft.
5. Ajay Kumar Biyani, son of Late Physically found at
Laxminarayan Biwani, of premises No.50, basement of the
Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. building and
approximate occupied
area 278 Sq.ft.
6. Gunjan Agarwaal, son of Hari Shankar Physically found at
Agarwal, of premises No. 50, Chowringhee basement front portion
Road, Kolkata – 700 071. of the building and
approximate occupied
area 300 Sq.ft.
7. Jaladhar Nayak, son of Sukhdeb Nayak, of Physically found at
premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata basement of the
6
– 700 071. building and
approximate occupied
area 100 Sq.ft.
8. Jamuna Sah, son of Late Megha Sah, of Open and Physically
premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata found at basement
– 700 071. portion of the building
and approximate
occupied area 28.5
Sq.ft.
9. Mina Devi Agarwal, wife of Mahesh Agarwal, It was closed, not
of premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Physically found at
Kolkata – 700 071. basement portion of the
building and
approximate occupied
area 350 Sq.ft.
10. Ritesh Agarwal, son of Hari Shankar Physically found at
Agarwal, of premises No. 50, Chowringhee basement portion of the
Road, Kolkata – 700 071. building and
approximate occupied
area 26.04 Sq.ft.
11. Shyam Nath Shaw, son of Late Sitaram Physically found at
Shaw, of premises No.50, Chowringhee basement portion of the
Road, Kolkata – 700071. building and
approximate occupied
area 99 Sq.ft.
12. Mahesh Mehra, son of Late Baijnath Mehra, It was closed at the
of premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, basement front portion
Kolkata – 700071. of the building and
approximate occupied
area measured from the
7outside 200 Sq.ft.
13. Bablu Kumar Shaw, son of Sukhdev Shaw, It was opened.
of premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, Physically found at
Kolkata – 700071. basement of the
building and
approximate occupied
area 99 Sq.ft.
14. Ankit Agarwal, son of Late Binod Kumar Physically found at
Agarwal, of premises No.50, Chowringhee basement front portion
Road, Kolkata – 700071. of the building and
approximate occupied
area 80 Sq.ft.
15. Anil Kumar Shaw, son of Sukhdev Shaw, of Ground floor 80 Sq.ft.
premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata
– 700071.
16. Raj Sonkar, son of Kakan Sonkar, of Ground floor 24 Sq.ft
premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata
– 700 071.
17. Ratan Lal Agarwasl, son of Rajendra Basement Rear Building
Agarwal, of premises No.50, Chowringhee 60 Sq.ft.
Road, Kolkata – 700 071.
18. Pushpa Agarwal, daughter of Banwarilal Ground floor 60 Sq.ft
Agarwal, of premises No.50, Chowringhee
Road, Kolkata – 700 071.
19. Mohit Jindal, son of Suraj Ratan Jindal of Front Building 100
premises No.50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata Sq.ft.
– 700 071.
Total 2122.54 Sq.ft.
8
8. The report inspires confidence. It demonstrates due diligence, objectivity and
fidelity to the commission entrusted by the Court. Nothing has been placed
before this Court which detracts from either its accuracy or its evidentiary
worth. The report accordingly deserves acceptance and shall form an integral
part of the record governing execution.
9. Execution of a decree for possession is governed principally by the provisions
contained in Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
legislative intent embodied therein is plain. Once a decree for recovery of
possession has attained finality, the executing Court possesses ample
authority to place the decree holder in actual physical possession by
removing every person bound by the decree who continues to remain in
occupation. Such authority is neither discretionary nor merely symbolic; it
constitutes the statutory mechanism through which judicial determinations
receive practical implementation.
10. The materials placed before this Court reveal that the remaining occupants
derive possession exclusively through the judgment debtor. Their occupation
does not emanate from any independent title superior to or disconnected
from that of the judgment debtor. No material has been produced
demonstrating acquisition of any legal estate capable of surviving the decree
passed by the competent civil court. Equally, save and except those persons
who have already approached this Court and whose claims remain the
subject matter of separate judicial consideration, no occupant has obtained
any protective order restraining execution.
9
11. A decree of eviction cannot be rendered ineffectual merely because
possession has subsequently become fragmented amongst several
occupants. Such a proposition would defeat the very object of execution
proceedings and diminish the authority of a judicial determination that has
attained finality after due adjudication. Every person whose possession flows
from the judgment debtor necessarily remains bound by the decree and
cannot assert a possessory right exceeding that possessed by the judgment
debtor itself.
12. The Learned Special Officers have specifically identified the remaining
portions of the decretal premises occupied by persons who have neither
instituted proceedings before this Court nor secured any interim protection.
Their continued occupation consequently presents no legal impediment to
execution. The decree holders, having established their entitlement through
a decree that continues to operate with full vigour, cannot be deprived of
actual possession by permitting such occupation to continue indefinitely.
13. Vide an order dated 23rd June, 2026, this Court observed as follows:-
“The Court :- On 16th June, 2026, the Learned Advocate representing
the Applicant in GA/1/2025 submitted to file written instruction to the
effect that the Applicant did not want to proceed with the hearing of the
instant application.
However, none appeared to represent the Applicant in GA/1/2025.
Let the same be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Next date be fixed on 29th June, 2026 for hearing of GA/2/2025.”
10
14. Since the applicants in GA/1/2025 have waived their rights to contest the
application through a written instruction absolving themselves to proceed
with the same, execution shall proceed only against the portions not
protected by any subsisting judicial direction being 3397 Sq.ft. + 2122 Sq.ft.
+ 5533 Sq.ft. as elicited hereinbefore in view of the report of the Joint Special
Officers as aforesaid.
15. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the decree holders have
established every circumstance warranting effective execution of the decree
dated 19th May, 2022. Acceptance of the report submitted by the Learned
Special Officers and issuance of consequential directions constitute the
natural progression of the execution proceeding.
16. Accordingly, E.C. No. 20 of 2025 stands allowed.
17. The report submitted by the Learned Special Officers is accepted and shall
form part of the record.
18. The Sheriff of Calcutta is directed to take immediate and appropriate
measures for securing peaceful and vacant possession of the remaining
decretal premises measuring 5533 square feet, forming part of the decretal
property situated at Premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata –
700071, more fully described in Schedule ‘A’ to the execution application, by
removing every occupier whose possession flows through the judgment
debtor and who does not possess the protection of any subsisting judicial
order.
11
19. Should access to any portion of the premises remain obstructed, the Sheriff
shall possess full authority to remove every impediment, including opening
locked rooms, doors, shutters or other barriers, whenever such action
becomes necessary for securing effective execution of the decree.
20. The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, together with the Officer-in-Charge,
Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, and every police authority exercising
territorial jurisdiction over the premises, shall extend complete police
assistance to the Sheriff for preservation of public order and for securing
peaceful implementation of the decree.
21. Every movable article discovered within the premises shall be inventoried by
the Sheriff in the presence of responsible witnesses, whereafter appropriate
steps shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.
22. The Learned Special Officers shall continue to render assistance during
execution by identifying the decretal property and supervising
implementation wherever their presence becomes necessary. The
remuneration of the Special Officers be fixed as 3000 GMs. each to be paid
by the decree holders.
23. Upon completion of execution, the Sheriff shall submit a detailed report
recording the manner of execution, the extent of possession delivered, the
inventory prepared, the nature of assistance rendered by the police
authorities and every circumstance bearing upon complete satisfaction of the
decree.
24. The execution application accordingly stands disposed of.
12
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on
priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
