Turner Morrison Limited vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 757 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Turner Morrison Limited vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd on 10 February, 2026

OD-21 with 22
                               ORDER SHEET

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                              ORIGINAL SIDE

                                CS/45/2013
                             IA NO: GA/9/2024

                       TURNER MORRISON LIMITED
                                 VS
                       BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

                                    With

                                 CS/11/2013

                       BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.
                                 VS
                       TURNER MORRISON LIMITED



BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Date: 10th February, 2026.
                                                                           Appearance:
                                                                Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
                                                               Mr. Varun Kothari, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Subhransu Ganguly, Adv.
                                         ...for plaintiff (in CS/45/2013)/respondent/

defendant (in CS/11/2013)

Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.

Mr. Debabrata Das, Adv.

Mr. Saptarshi Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Tirthankar Nandi, Adv.

... for the petitioner/ defendant (in CS/45/2013)

Mr. Prabhakar Choudhury, Adv.

... Commissioner

The Court:- The Learned Advocate representing the

petitioner/defendant submitted to have paid the municipal taxes till date.

The Learned Advocate representing the defendant is to bifurcate the

specific period from 1988 till 2012 and from 2012 till date in respect of

payment of the municipal taxes.

The Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff/respondent

submitted in view of the order dated 8th July, 2024 passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, the Learned Commissioner visiting to the property in

question had been ruled out. An appeal was preferred against such order on

behalf of the defendants, which, vide order dated 5th February, 2025 was

dismissed as not pressed.

The Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff indicated that the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had not entertained the prayer of the

applicant seeking the visit of the Learned Advocate Commissioner to the

property in question. However, the order inter-alia stated as follows: "The

Defendant had occasion to adduce evidence before the Learned Commissioner

but they abstained from doing so. The failed to prove their case by adding

cogent evidence. When the Defendant did not adduce any evidence, it cannot

be enjoined upon the Learned Commissioner to value the property on

physically visiting the same. This is fishing out of evidence. The Learned

Commissioner rightly, with cogent reason, rejected the similar application."

The instant order related to the rejection of an application by the

applicant to the Learned Commissioner seeking for his visit to the property in

question to value the same. The observation of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court therefore had been on a different context. The Learned Advocate

representing the plaintiff submitted the building to have been in a dilapidated

condition whereby the area in possession of the defendant had been

uninhabitable and the market value with regard to the condition of the

building could not have been as assessed by the Learned Commissioner to be

Rs. 16,17,59,455/- as occupational charges. It was further submitted by the

Learned Advocate representing the defendant to have preferred a separate

suit claiming ownership of the suit premises in view of the provisions of the

Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972. It was further submitted that

the defendant company had shifted to a separate place in New Town

functioning therefrom.

To further proceed with the adjudication of the instant dispute, it is

necessary to have a clear picture as to the condition of the building

confronted by the Learned Advocate representing the defendant as also the

extent of possession of the same, if at all.

The Learned Commissioner is to visit the property and file a report

with regard only to the condition of the building pertaining to the area in

possession of the defendant. He is to further state as to whether the area in

possession of the defendant is being utilized on a regular basis till date.

Next date be fixed on 17th March, 2026.

The inspection of the buildings is to be conducted in presence of the

Learned Advocates representing both the parties with prior notice to the same

at a time and date of their convenience.

The Learned Commissioner be paid the same fees by the defendant

as was directed by the Co-ordinate Bench on an earlier occasion.

(ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.) DB