Calcutta High Court
Shri Jagat Singh Manot vs The Municipal Commissioner Kmc And Ors on 4 August, 2025
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/186/2025
IN WPO/503/2024
IA NO:GA/1/2025
SHRI JAGAT SINGH MANOT
-VS-
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER KMC AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Date: August 4, 2025.
Ms. M. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.; Ms. A. Manot, Adv.; Ms. Hritashree Biswas, Adv., for petitione
r.
Mr. G. Mitra, Adv.; Ms. P. Sengupta, Adv., for KMC.
1. The Court: The respondents nos.5 to 11 have not appeared before this Court
despite service. The affidavit-of-service filed earlier is on record.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Single Bench dated
April 10, 2025, passed in WPO/503/2024(Jagat Singh Manot -vs- Municipal
Commissioner of KMC).
3. By the said impugned judgment and order, the Single Bench has held that an
earlier award dated February 16, 2018, as modified on December 5, 2018, as not
being not binding on the KMC and is not enforceable against them. It was further
held that the cancellation of an exchange deed between the two parties to the
arbitration, namely the appellant and the respondents nos.5 to 11 is also not
binding on the KMC.
4. The writ petition was filed upon refusal of the KMC to accept such cancellation of
exchange deed and to separate the two premises being no.121/B, Hazra Road,
P.S. Kalighat, Kolkata, and the one at Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. The said
two premises were amalgamated at the request of the respective owners by the
KMC earlier.
5. It appears from the documents produced by the KMC that notwithstanding the
aforesaid awards, the respondents nos.5 to 11 have objected to the separation of
the said premises in view of a subsequent reference to arbitration by a Division
Bench of this Court of the disputes and differences between the developer
appointed by the parties to develop the said premises. The second arbitration
being a money claim filed by the promoter, was entrusted to a retired Judge of
this Court Justice Ranajit Kumar Bag (Retd.). The arbitration was cancelled
since the promoter refused to file any statement of claim.
6. The respondents nos.5 to 11 have written to the KMC objecting to separation of
the two premises, despite being parties to the earlier arbitration which resulted in
an award and modified by consent of the parties. In essence, the respondents
nos.5 to 11 are opposing the award passed by consent of the parties which is
stated to have been registered with the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.
7. While it is true that an award between two private persons or set of persons is not
binding on a third party, much less a statutory authority, the objection of the
private respondents nos.5 to 11 prima facie appears to be unsustainable in law.
8. In the backdrop of the above, the short question to be addressed before this
Court is as to the nature and legality of the objection of the KMC in refusing to
recognize a registered consent award.
9. The appellant shall file an informal paper book including all the pleadings and
documents used before the First Court with an index duly paginated. Let copies
thereof be served on all the respondents.
10. List this matter two weeks hence under the heading "Hearing".
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)
tk
