[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Mayapur Sales Pvt Ltd vs Hari Charan Gupta on 9 December, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OD - 2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/2/2021
In CS/105/2020
MAYAPUR SALES PVT LTD
Vs
HARI CHARAN GUPTA
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 9th December, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv.
Ms. S. Mallick, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Zeeshan Haque, Adv.
Mr. Chitresh Sarawagi, Adv.
...for the defendant
The Court: Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff is filed today
annexing therewith copy of the Order passed by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench on
24/05/2022
in CP (IB) No. 548/KB/2020.
GA 2 of 2021 is an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for rejection of plaint and/or dismissal of the suit. It
is contended that the transaction under reference in the suit was a commercial
transaction amenable to Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the suit should
have been filed in the Commercial Division, a default, which warrants rejection of
plaint and/or dismissal of the suit. It is further contended that the instant suit is a
counter blast to the proceeding initiated before NCLT, Kolkata being the CP (IB) No.
548/KB/2020. The sole purpose of suit is to stultify the proceeding filed before
NCLT. Since, the NCLT being the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the issue, the
instant suit is barred by IBC (Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016). It is further
contended that since the suit involves dispute on commercial matter the plaint
should be returned to place before appropriate forum.
The Plaintiff filed affidavit-in-opposition denying all the allegations. One of
the grounds taken be the Plaintiffs is that the instant dispute relates to a past
commercial transaction which is closed now.
Affidavit-in-reply was also filed.
Both the counsels filed notes of arguments.
I have heard rival submissions.
The subject matter of the present suit are certain documents which are alleged
to be forged and fabricated based on which certain demands have been raised by the
Defendant against the Plaintiff.
There was a negotiation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on
development of the property which was followed by execution of a memorandum of
understanding dissolving the disputes. The documents which are sought to be
challenged the suit were executed after signing of the memorandum of
understanding. The very existence of documents are questioned. Prima facie
reading of the plaint discloses a past transaction which is not the subject matter of
the suit. It is too early to conclude that the suit involves commercial dispute. The
suit is to decide on the existence or non-existence of documents. These documents
are not outcome of any agreement. The commercial transactions alleged are passed
and not the present one. Therefore, at this stage of the suit prima facie it cannot be
said that the suit involves commercial dispute.
It is also alleged by the Plaintiff that the Company law Tribunal, Kolkata
Bench has the jurisdiction to decide on the issue. The supplementary affidavit filed
today, contains the order passed by the NCLT. The NCLT observed that the said
Authority is not a forum where party can lead evidence to assess the authenticity of
their documents and dismissed the application accordingly. The very judgment
dated 24/05/2022 and a subsequent Order dated 08/09/2022 very clearly observed
that the NCLT has no jurisdiction to decide on the dispute and hinted that the
dispute can be decided only on evidence. The issue of forgery cannot be decided by
the said Authority and the Defendant being the secured creditor was advised to seek
remedy elsewhere. This observation rules out exclusivity of jurisdiction as argued on
behalf of the Defendant, of NCLT. This consequently goes against the argument that
jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,
2016.
The suit involves adjudication of authenticity of certain documents which by
nature by a civil dispute, prima facie. Therefore, the plea of rejection/return of
plaint/dismissal of the suit holds no ground.
Accordingly, GA 2 of 2021 stands dismissed.
The Department shall publish a Report on appearance of Defendant and date
of filing written statement, if any, on the returnable date, namely, 16th January, 2026.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
