[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Central Bank Of India And Ors vs Jai Kumar Goyal And Ors on 6 February, 2026
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
In The High Court at Calcutta
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
[Commercial Division]
Original Side
Present: The Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy
IA No. GA-COM/6/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
VS
JAI KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS
&
IA No. GA-COM/7/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
VS
JAI KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS
&
IA No. GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
VS
JAI KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS
For plaintiffs/banks: Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv
Ms. Swati Dalmia, Adv.
Mr. Orijit Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Raj, Adv.
For defendant Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.
For defendant Nos.5 to 15: Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
2
Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Adv.
For the defendant Nos. 21 to 25: Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv.
Mr. Sayak Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Chaddaha, Adv.
Reserved on : 09.12.2025
Judgment on : 06.02.2026
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.:
In Re: IA No. GA-COM/6/2025, IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 & IA No. GA-
COM/8/2025
Facts:
1. By consent of the parties all these three applications have been
considered together and are being decided through this composite
single decision.
2. All the three applications filed by the different sets of defendants
contain the same prayer for rejection of plaint. All these applications
have been argued by three sets of learned Advocates for two days.
The grounds for rejection of plaint in all the said three applications
are, inter alia :-
(a) The suit is barred by limitation;
(b) Plaintiffs do not have the right to sue; and
(c) The plaint does not disclose cause of action.
3. Parties have referred to the copy of the plaint being annexure A at
page 38 to IA NO.GA-COM/6/2025.
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
4. The plaint case is that the plaintiff-banks as consortium had
granted financial assistances to defendant no.7 (for short the
borrower). While availing of the financial facilities, the guarantors,
inter alia, had pledged a chunk of shares of and in the defendant
no.26 held by diverse share-holders either individuals or juristic
entities. Subsequently, the plaintiff-banks (for short the lenders)
discovered that those pledged shares of and in the defendant no.26
(for short Shyam Ferro) held by the original share-holders were
transferred and/or transmitted in favour of others. Plaint case
shows that the defendant no.1 to defendant no.4 transferred their
share-holdings in favour of defendant no.21 to defendant no.25.
Defendant no.5 to defendant no.15 transferred their share-holdings
in favour of defendant no.16 to defendant no.18. Defendant no.16 to
defendant no.18 transferred their share-holdings in favour of
defendant no.19 and defendant no.20. The plaint case shows that
the shares held by defendant no.5 to defendant no.15 were
eventually transferred to defendant no.19 and defendant no.20
through defendant no.16 to defendant no.18.
5. Further plaint case is that the borrower had defaulted in repayment
of its dues and to regularize its loan account. Due to such default,
the loan account of the borrower was declared as Non-Performing
Asset (for short NPA) on January 31, 2018. The default was to the
extent of a sum of Rs.1396.34 crores. The credit facilities were
revisited and/or modified and/or restructured from time to time.
Personal guarantees were executed by defendant nos.1 to 4 and
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
corporate guarantees were executed by defendant nos.5 to 10. The
plaint specifically states that the principal asset owned by defendant
nos.1 to 4 and by defendant nos.5 to 15 were the shares of and in
Shyam Ferro. Defendant nos.1 to 4 and defendant nos.5 to 15
owned 42.05 per cent of the total share-holdings of and in Shyam
Ferro, as stated in paragraph 28 of the plaint. Plaint case is that the
shares of and in Shyam Ferro were extremely valuable. Had not the
defendant nos.1 to 15 owned the said shares, the lenders would not
have accepted the personal guarantees of defendant nos.1 to 4 and
corporate guarantees of defendant nos.5 to 10. The deed of
guarantee, inter alia, was executed on July 21, 2014 and the
supplemental deed of guarantee was executed on April 25, 2016,
which prohibited the defendant nos.1 to 4 from transferring and/or
encumbering their assets including their shares of and in Shyam
Ferro without prior written permission from the lenders. The lenders
stated in the plaint that the defendant nos.5 to 15 had entered into
a share pledge agreement dated February 20, 2017 with defendant
nos.16 to 18. This was in violation of the stipulations in the deed of
guarantee.
6. While narrating the manner and mode of alleged transfer of shares,
inter se, defendants, the lenders in their plaint had stated the
particulars in paragraph 37 of the plaint, where it is stated that from
the list of share-holders for the financial year 2016-17, 2017-18 and
2018-19, which were in public domain, the transfer of shares were
reflected.
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
7. Principally on the basis of, inter alia, the above plaint case, the
lenders have filed the suit praying for following reliefs :-
"In such facts and circumstances, the Plaintiffs pray for
leave/dispensation under clause 12 of Letters Patent, 1865
and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to
institute the present suit and claim:-
a) Declaration that the said shares of Defendant No. 26
held by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 15 in the manner TT stated
in Annexure X constitute the security interest of the
Plaintiffs and are incapable of being sold, transferred,
alienated, dealt with and/or encumbered during the
subsistence of the personal guarantees and corporate
guarantees more fully and particularly paragraph 37 hereto
described in
b) Declaration that the transfer of the said shares belonging
to Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to Defendant Nos. 21 to 25 more
fully and particularly stated in the schedule being Annexure
KTT hereto is illegal, unlawful, fraudulent, null and void.
c) Declaration that the transfer of the said shares belonging
to Defendant Nos. 5 to 15 to Defendant Nos. 16 to 18 more
fully and particularly stated in the schedule being Annexure
6 TT hereto is illegal, unlawful, fraudulent, null and void.
d) Declaration that the transfer of the shareholding of
Defendant Nos. 16 to 18 to Defendant Nos. 19 and 20 more
fully and particularly sated in the schedule being Annexure
hereto is illegal, unlawful, fraudulent, null and void.
e) A decree directing delivery up and cancelation of the
transfer of the said shares belonging to Defendant Nos. 1 to
4 in Defendant No.26 in favour of Defendant Nos. 21 to 25
as stated in paragraph 37 (a) and hereto annexure TT
f) A decree directing delivery up and cancelation of the
transfer of the said shares belonging to Defendant Nos. 5 to
15 in Defendant No.26 in favour of Defendant Nos. 16 to 18
as stated in paragraph 37 (b) and annexure UU hereto.
g) A decree directing delivery up and cancelation of the
issuance/transfer of the shareholding of the Defendant
Nos. 16 to 18 in favour of Defendant Nos. 19 and 20 as
stated in paragraph 37(k).
h) Declaration that the Settlement Agreement between
Defendant Nos. 16 to 18 and Defendant Nos. 19 and 20,
and all proceedings initiated by the said Defendants in an
attempt to execute the Settlement Agreement are a product
of fraud, fabrication, collusion and conspiracy and should
be delivered up and cancelled.
i) Decree cancelling the Settlement Agreement dated 22nd
March, 2022 and the consequential issuance/transfer of the
shareholding of the Defendant Nos. 16 to 18 in favour of
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
Defendant Nos. 19 and 20 as stated in paragraph 37(k) is
illegal, null and void;
j) Upon cancellation of transfer of shares, Defendant Nos.
16 to 18 and 21 to 25 be directed to transfer shares held by
them in by Defendant No. 26 to Defendant Nos. 1 to 15 in
the form and manner as was existing at the time when the
Plaintiffs had extended financial facilities to Defendant
No.27.
k) Decree for perpetual injunction, restraining Defendant
Nos. 4, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 from dealing with the shares
of Defendant No. 26, in any manner whatsoever;
l) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining Defendant Nos.
16 to 25 from selling, alienating, dealing with, disposing of
and in any manner whatsoever encumbering any shares of
Defendant No.26 held by them;
m) A fit and proper person be appointed as Receiver over
and in respect of the said shares of Defendant No.26 held
by the Defendant Nos. 16 to 25 and the said Receiver be
directed to forthwith take possession of original share
scrips, share transfer forms and all other related documents
pertaining to the fraudulent transfer of the said shares;
n) Receiver;
o) Injunction;
p) Attachment;
q) Costs; and
r) Further and other reliefs."
8. The three sets of defendants then had filed the above three
applications through three master summons with the principal
prayer for rejection of plaint and/or dismissal of the suit against the
respective applicant-defendants and pending disposal of the
applications stay of all further proceedings in the instant civil suit.
Submissions :
9. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants-
defendant nos.5 to 15 in IA NO.GA-COM/7/2025 submits that from
paragraph 37 and the various sub-paragraphs thereunder and 48
and 49 it will be clear that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the
alleged transfer of shares way back in 2017 to 2019, as the specific
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
averment made in the plaint that the fact of alleged transfer of
shares was discovered by the plaintiffs from the financial statements
filed by Shyam Ferro during the said period. The suit has been filed
in 2025. Therefore, on a reading of the statements made in the
plaint it is ex facie clear that the suit is barred by limitation.
10. Mr. Rupak Ghosh then submits that by virtue of an arbitration
proceeding, inter se, the defendants and/or some of such defendants
and the award passed therein, the shares were transferred. None of the
plaintiffs were parties to the said arbitration proceeding. The shares
were transferred when there was no restraint order on the transferor-
defendants. Since the transfer had taken place by virtue of an arbitral
award to which the plaintiffs are not parties, the plaintiffs have no right
to sue and the instant plaint should be rejected.
11. Referring to diverse paragraphs from the plaint, Mr. Rupak Ghosh,
learned Advocate submits that since the plaintiffs do not have any right
to sue, consequently, plaintiffs cannot have any cause of action in the
plaint.
12. On the above plea, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Advocate prays for
rejection of the plaint and consequently dismissal of suit against his
clients.
13. Learned counsel for the defendants-applicants submits that the plaint
has been drafted in an articulate manner to overcome the plea of
limitation. The plaint has to be read meaningfully. An articulate
drafting cannot save a plaint.
14. In support of his contention raised on behalf of the defendants-
applicants, the following decisions have been relied upon :-
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
i) In the matter of: Kanayalal Madhaji Thakkar vs.
Shree Padmanabh Builders., reported at 2011 (1) Mh.
L. J. 939;
ii) In the matter of: N. V Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. vs.
Mariyamma (dead) by proposed Lrs. And Ors, reported
at (2005) 5 SCC 548;
and
iii) In the matter of: Starlight Real Estate (Ascot)
Mauritius Limited and Another vs. Jagrati Trade
Services Private Limited and Ors, reported at 2019
SCC OnLine Cal 7290.
15. Mr. Dhruv Chaddaha, learned counsel appearing for the defendant
nos.21 to 25 in support of his application being IA NO.GA-
COM/8/2025 adopted the submissions of Mr. Rupak Ghosh,
learned Advocate. He also prays for rejection of plaint and dismissal
of suit against his clients.
16. Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant
nos.1 to 4 has also adopted the submissions of Mr. Rupak Ghosh in
support of his application being IA NO.GA-COM/6/2025 filed by
the defendant nos.1 to 4. He also prays for rejection of the plaint
and dismissal of the suit against his clients.
17. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
plaintiffs submits at the threshold, when the consortium of banks
granted loan/financial assistance to the defendants, the primary
security was the shares of and in the defendant No.26, Shyam Ferro,
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
which were held by diverse defendants either individually or through
juristic entities. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had executed personal
guarantees and respondent nos.5 to 10 executed corporate
guarantees. Respondent nos.5 to 15 were controlled and managed
by defendant nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.5 to 15 had transferred their
shares held by them in Shyam Ferro in favour of defendant nos.16
to 18 which were controlled by defendant nos.21 to 25 being the
spouse and children of defendant nos.1 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4
transferred their shares of and in Shyam Ferro in favour of
defendant nos.21 to 25. The shares of defendant nos.21 to 25 of and
in Shyam Ferro are presently lying with respondent nos.16 to 18,
who issued 85 per cent shares to defendant nos.19 and 20 under a
settlement dated March 22, 2022 pursuant to a mediation.
Defendant nos. 19 and 20 though are foreign entities, are under
active control and management of the Goyel family.
18. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
plaintiffs refers to various portions from the plaint. Mr. Ghosh
submits that the shares of Shyam Ferro which were held by various
guarantors as security of the loan granted by plaintiffs had been
transferred in favour of diverse defendants without prior permission
of the plaintiffs. Having discovered such purported transfer of
shares, inter alia, by the guarantors, the plaintiffs immediately filed
the suit against the defendants. Inter alia, in paragraphs 28 and 29
of the plaint, the plaintiffs specifically stated that the valuable assets
against which the loan was provided by the plaintiffs to the
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
borrower-defendants and the guarantees were allowed to be
executed were the shares of the Shyam Ferro. The transfer and/or
subsequent transfer of these shares, inter se, parties have been
challenged by the plaintiffs in the instant suit. All the details and
particulars are stated in the plaint.
19. Mr. Debnath Ghosh then refers to a judgment dated October 29,
2025 annexure A at page 32 to GA-COM/8/2025. The said
judgment was delivered by Coordinate Bench in GA-COM/1/2025
and GA-COM/2/2025. GA-COM/1/2025 was an application filed by
the plaintiffs praying for interim reliefs, whereas, GA-COM/2/2025
was an application filed by defendant no.1 praying for revocation of
leave granted for dispensation of the provisions under Section 12A
of the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The said judgment shows that
all the defendants entered appearance to contest the application
filed by the plaintiffs for grant interim reliefs being GA-COM/1/2025
and have also supported the case of the defendant no.2 for
revocation of leave. Both the applications were taken up together.
The parties to the suit had argued their respective points in
connection with both the said GA-COM/1/2025 as well as GA-
COM/2/2025.
20. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate referring to the said
judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated October 29, 2025 submits
that, all the points of demurrer in the instant three applications
were specifically argued by the defendant no.2 in GA-COM/2/2025
and all these points were rejected and negated by the Coordinate
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
Bench. The defendants did not prefer any appeal from the said
judgment and order dated October 29, 2025. Thus, defendants are
barred from reopening the issues which have already been decided
by the Coordinate Bench on October 29, 2025. The instant three
applications are totally misconceived, frivolous and are liable to be
dismissed.
21. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
plaintiffs further submits that the question of limitation is a mixed
question of law and fact. Whether plaintiffs have right to sue or that
the plaint does not disclose any cause of action at the stage of
rejection of the plaint, is only be adjudged on the basis of a
meaningful reading of the plaint. The statements made in the plaint
should be taken as true and correct. If on a meaningful reading of
the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs does not have right to sue or
the plaint does not disclose cause of action, then the plaint may be
rejected at Order VII Rule 11 stage. On a meaningful reading of the
instant plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs have pleaded fraud
and upon discovery of such fraud, the plaintiffs made necessary
enquiry and then filed the suit. The averments in the plaint would
show that the case made out in the plaint should stand for trial.
22. In the light of the above submissions, Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned
Senior Advocate submits that the instant three applications should
be dismissed.
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
Decision:
23. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of
materials on record, it appears to this Court that, the applicants in
all these three applications have proceeded with a single voice
praying for rejection of the plaint. The grounds urged on behalf of
the three sets of defendants in their respective applications are
same, similar and identical, praying for rejection of the plaint. The
grounds for rejection urged by the defendants have already been
narrated above.
24. On a close reading of the judgment and order of the Coordinate
Bench dated October 29, 2025 it appears to this Court that the
defendant no.1 had filed GA-COM/2/2025 praying for rejection of
leave granted for dispensation of the requirements under Section
12A of 2015 Act. All parties to the suit had urged the matter in
connection with GA-COM/1/2025, an application for injunction filed
by the plaintiffs as well as GA-COM/2/2025, thus, prayers for grant
of ad interim relief and revocation of leave were taken up together.
25. On a close reading of the said judgment date October 29, 2025 it
appears to this Court, inter alia, as follows :-
(a) Learned Senior Advocate representing defendant Nos.1 to 4
submitted that the reliefs of the plaintiffs in the plaint is only
with respect to the shares of defendant No.26 and no prayer
for any other associates of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is prayed
for. He submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs
with regard to the shares, the shares have already been sold
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
and the same is admitted by the plaintiffs in various
paragraphs of the plaint.
(b) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 4
further submitted that the transfer of shares happened in the
year 2017.
(c) It was urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that the
assets and liabilities statements of the defendant Nos.1 to 4
filed with plaintiff no.2 on June 18, 2021 and July 27, 2021
informing that they no longer owned shares in defendant
no.26.
(d) It was submitted on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that
the defendant No.26 had filed annual return on a regular
basis with the Registrar of Companies and such annual return
have updated the list of share-holders as on the date and year.
The register made it abundantly clear that as on those dates,
the defendants including the defendant no.1, were not the
share-holders of the defendant no.26.
(e) It was further urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4
that the plaintiffs have deliberately made false and incorrect
statements in the plaint stating that the plaintiffs came to
know about the transfer of shares of the defendant no.26 in
the month of May, 2025. It was submitted that only to get
dispensation of requirement of Section 12A of the 2015 Act
and to save the period of limitation, the plaintiffs have made
a false and untrue statement.
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
(f) It was further urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4
that the plaintiffs had knowledge of transfer of shares in the
year 2017 but the suit was filed in 2025 after the period of
limitation.
(g) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant Nos.16
to 18 submitted that the documents disclosed by the plaintiffs
in the suit revealed that the defendant nos.1 to 4 and
defendant nos.21 to 25 transferred their share-holdings in
defendant no.26 in the year 2017-18.
(h) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for defendant Nos.16 to
18 referred to prayers (c ) to (f), (h), (i) and (j) from the plaint
and submitted that the plaintiffs praying for declaration of
transfer of shares as null and void and for cancellation of the
transfer of shares with regard to a settlement agreement and
the settlement agreement entered by and between the parties
was accepted by the Delhi High Court and on the basis of the
settlement, shares had been transferred and the plaintiffs
cannot challenge the settlement deed by filing the instant suit.
The plaintiffs have no right to sue.
(i) Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the defendant Nos.16
to 18 further submitted that in the forensic report it is
categorically mentioned that on November 25, 2022 the
companies had allotted shares to the foreign company as per
the settlement agreement at Delhi. It was urged that all the
shares had been transferred as per the settlement agreement
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
and the settlement agreement was duly accepted by the Delhi
High Court and the same was occurred in the year 2022. It
was specifically urged on behalf of the defendant nos.16 to 18
that the instant suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by
limitation. The instant suit has been filed and leave for
dispensation of requirements under Section 12A of 2015 Act
had been obtained by suppressing material facts.
(j) The judgment further shows that learned Senior Advocate
representing defendant Nos.5 to 15 had adopted the
submissions made on behalf of the defendant nos.16 to 18.
(k) It was urged on behalf of the defendant Nos.5 to 15 that the
instant suit is not maintainable.
(l) On behalf of the defendant Nos.21 to 25 it was submitted
that the plaintiffs filed the suit by suppressing facts. It was
submitted that Form MGT-7 along with list of share-holders
were published in the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the
same are public documents. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot say
that the plaintiffs came to know of the transfer of the shares
from the forensic report dated 15th May, 2025. The documents
were all available in MCA portal on the public domain.
(m) Defendant Nos.19 and 20 had adopted the
submissions made on behalf of the defendant nos.16 to 18.
(n) The Coordinate Bench ultimately was of the opinion that the
contentions of the defendants that the plaintiffs had knowledge
of transfer since inception but had falsely stated that the
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
plaintiffs came to know from the forensic report dated 15th May,
2025 all those facts of transfer of shares, whether the plaintiffs
had knowledge about the transfer of shares since inception or
from 15th May, 2025 is a matter of trial.
26. In view of the above, the Coordinate Bench in its said judgment
dated October 29, 2025 dismissed GA/2/2025, which was an
application for rejection of plaint.
27. Since no appeal has been carried out by the defendants or any of
them from the said judgment and order dated October 29, 2025, the
findings of the Coordinate Bench dismissing the application for
rejection of plaint has achieved its finality.
28. On a close reading of the said judgment dated October 29, 2025 and
the grounds for rejection taken by the defendants in the instant
three applications, this Court is of the firm view that the grounds
are same and identical. Therefore, this Court shall not take any
different view and the law also does not permit to take any different
view, so long the said judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated
October 29, 2026 is in force.
29. In any event, if the contentions of the defendants-applicants praying
for rejection of plaint, as stated in the instant three applications are
considered in the light of the statements made in the plaint, it would
clearly appear that the grounds for rejection are mixed question of
law and facts and cannot be decided in a summary manner without
holding a properly constituted trial of the suit.
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
30. Last but not the least this Court expresses its deep concern for the
reasons that all the instant three applications were urged by the
three sets of defendants through their respective learned Advocates
on their respective applications independently but none of the
applicants have drawn attention of this Court on the said judgment
of the Coordinate Bench dated October 29, 2025. Neither the same
was even referred to save and except a copy of the judgment has
been annexed as annexure A to GA-COM/8/2025. Learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs for the first time has drawn
attention of this Court on the said judgment of the Coordinate
Bench and made his submissions thereupon. The defendants in the
instant applications have urged about the articulate drafting of the
plaint to avoid the period of limitation, the same voice is reiterated
by this Court about the articulate submissions made on behalf of
the defendants-applicants without making any single reference and
whisper as to the existence of the said judgment of the Coordinate
Bench. Had the attention of this Court not been drawn to the said
judgment by the learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiffs, this
Court might have proceeded on a wrong direction through a
misguided path.
31. In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no requirement of discussing the
further submissions made on behalf of the parties or any
discussions on the judgments cited on behalf of the defendants-
applicants, which are already referred to above. Since the issue of
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
demurrer taken by the defendants have already been decided by the
Coordinate Bench in the said judgment and order dated October 29,
2025 which has attained its finality, the instant three applications
are found to be misconceived, frivolous and harassive and not
tenable in law and liable to be dismissed.
32. The said three frivolous applications have wasted the valuable
judicial hours. Resultantly all the three applications, namely, GA-
COM/6/2025, GA-COM/7/2025 and GA-COM/8/2025 stand
dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.50,000/- for each application
to be paid by respective applicants in favour of West Bengal State
Legal Services Authority positively within two weeks from date.
33. Learned Advocates-on-record for the applicants shall provide copies
of the payment receipts for cost to the learned Advocate-on-record
for the plaintiffs immediately upon payment.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)
IA No.GA-COM/6/2025, IA.GA-COM/7/2025 & IA.GA-COM/8/2025
In CS-COM/83/2025
A.R.,J.
