[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Eyelid Mercantiles Private Limited vs Official Liquidator on 20 March, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
ODSL-1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IA NO. GA/1/2026
IN
CS/21/2026
EYELID MERCANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 20th March, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Adv.
For the plaintiff.
Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta, Adv.
For the Official Liquidator.
The Court :- Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 25 th
September, 2006, this application has been made by the plaintiff for some
interim protection. The urgency cited by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has
been granted liberty to institute a suit or proceeding to establish its rights in
accordance with law by a co-ordinate Bench on 17 th March, 2026. At the
same time, according to the plaintiff, the co-ordinate Bench has fixed
CP/233/2008 today (20th March, 2026) for considering the report of the
Official Liquidator regarding confirmation of sale.
It is the case of the plaintiff that if the sale is confirmed then the suit
and the connected application will automatically be rendered infructuous.
That apart, third party rights will be created with the confirmation of sale,
which will lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
On a perusal of the judgment and order dated 17 th March, 2026 and
the document referred to by the plaintiff, it appears that the sale of
properties and assets of Dunlop India Limited (in liquidation) has a
chequered history. There are several rounds of litigation in respect of most of
the properties of the said company in liquidation when the same are put for
sale. The fact, however, remains in this application is that the agreement
between the plaintiff and Dunlop India Limited, now in liquidation, had been
entered upon prior to the company going into the liquidation, which has
been also recorded in the judgment and order dated 17 th March, 2026. The
plaintiff had also asserted its right by initially a disclaimer application and
thereafter an application under Section 4446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
It is well settled provisions of law that a party cannot be left
remediless and no right of his left unenforced as held in AIR 2002 SC 2572
(Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai & Ors.). Once the plaintiff has been given the
liberty to file a suit or proceedings to establish its rights in accordance with
law and the plaintiff has approached the Court prior to confirmation of sale,
the right of the plaintiff is required to be examined which may ultimately
transpire to be unmeritorious at the end but the plaintiff at this stage cannot
be non-suited.
The apprehension of the plaintiff that the confirmation of sale of the
suit property if made today by the co-ordinate Bench during the pendency of
the suit and the interlocutory application, there will be multiplicity of judicial
proceedings, is also not unfounded. The plaintiff's apprehension that
confirmation of sale if made today may render the suit and the application
infructuous cannot be also said to be without any substance.
The plaintiff claims to have served notice and a copy of the
application to the Official Liquidator on 19 th March, 2026 and further notice
has been also given today after the plaint had been presented and the Court
had granted leave to move the application.
The Official Liquidator is represented.
Learned Advocate representing the Official Liquidator submits that
the facts relating to sale of assets and properties of the Company (in
liquidation) are ugly and the Official Liquidator should be granted adequate
opportunity to place all facts to demonstrate that the conduct of the plaintiff
is not only in abuse of process but also mala fide. On behalf of the Official
Liquidator, however, time is sought for to place on record the relevant
documents before any interim order is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
Considering the submissions made by the parties and the materials
on record, I am inclined to give the Official Liquidator an opportunity to
place on record the documents but at the same time some interim protection
is also required to be given to the plaintiff to avoid multiplicity of judicial
proceedings and prevent the suit and the application of the plaintiff being
rendered infructuous on the sale having been confirmed.
The sale for confirmation is before a co-ordinate Bench and as such
this Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment and order dated 17 th
March, 2026 to stay the confirmation of sale. Keeping in mind this
limitation, I direct the Official Liquidator and the plaintiff to jointly approach
the co-ordinate Bench and inform the said Bench about the suit, the
application and the order which is dictated in open Court with a request not
to take up the issue of conformation of sale with regard to the suit property
which comprises of flat Nos. 2,3,4,6,7,10,15,16,20,22,23 and 25 each having
super built up area of 2277 sq. ft. (aggregating 27,324 sq. ft.) at the ground
to fifth floors of premises No. 46B, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata 700071 along
with eleven garage respectively bearing Nos. 2,3,5,6,10,13,14,17,18,21 and
22 each having super built up area 192 sq. ft. (aggregating 2,112 sq. ft.) at
the ground floor of the said premises along with servant quarters, if any, that
is morefully described in the schedule of the plaint and at page-22 of this
application, until 2nd April, 2026 since the application is made returnable on
30th March, 2026.
The matter is made returnable on 30 th March, 2026.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
snn.
