Tripura High Court
Sri Abhijit Debnath vs Sri Prabir Kumar Majumder And Others on 30 April, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.26 of 2025
Sri Abhijit Debnath
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Prabir Kumar Majumder and others
......... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Debasish Datta, Advocate,
Mr. K. De, Advocate,
Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
30/04/2025
The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment
dated 17.02.2025 passed in Misc. Appeal No.01/2023 by the learned District
Judge, South Tripura, Belonia under order XLIII Rule 1(r) whereby the
learned appellate Court has set aside the order of temporary/interim
injunction granted by the learned trial Court vide dated 05.09.2023 in Civil
Misc. (Injunction) No.03/2023.
Petitioner under an agreement for sale with the defendant No.1-
owner claims to be running M/s. P.K. Petroleum Agency, the dealership of
which was allotted in favour of the defendant No.1 by the Indian Oil
Corporation (IOC, for short). It is the case of the plaintiff that in order to
ward off the threat of forfeiture of his mortgaged property against a loan
taken from IDBI Bank, the respondent No.1 entered into the agreement for
sale of the land along with the petrol pump for a consideration of
Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) only. Out of that Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs) only was paid as advance, and till date
Rs.2,02,88,904/- (Rupees Two Crore Two Lakh Eighty-Eight Thousand
Nine Hundred and Four) only has been paid in total. In the meantime, the
plaintiff came to know that the respondent has floated the mortgaged
property over which the petrol pump is situated for sale on OLX.Com.
Being concerned, he approached the learned trial Court in T.S. No.5/2023
and also prayed for interim injunction through Civil Misc. (Inj.)
No.03/2023. By order dated 05.09.2023, the learned trial Court granted a
temporary injunction framed in the following manner after hearing the
defendant No.1, IOC and the Banks:
"33. Accordingly, the application of the
plaintiff-petitioner for temporary injunction is
hereby allowed with the following declarations:
(i) That the defendant-Ops No. 4 and 5 are
hereby directed to authorize the plaintiff-petitioner
to operate the Bank account No. 0405050010290 of
Punjab National Bank, Sabroom Branch, IFSC Code
No. PUNB0040520 in the name of M/S P. K
Petroleum Agency, IOC(AOD), and withdraw Cash
and Cheque(s) by putting his signature(s) for and on
behalf of the defendant-Op No. 1 in terms of the
Authorization Affidavit, dated 28.09.2022, till
disposal of the instant suit,
(ii) That the defendant-Op No. 1 is restrained
from alienating the suit property to anyone else than
the plaintiff-petitioner, in terms of the Agreement
for Sale, dated 16.09.2022, till disposal of the
instant suit,
(iii) That the defendant-Ops No. 6, 7 and 8 are
hereby directed to allow the plaintiff petitioner to
run the petroleum pump under the name & style of
M/S P.K Petroleum Agency, by reconstituting the
dealership of the said petrol pump in favour of the
plaintiff-petitioner, on the strength of the Agreement
for Salem, dated 16.09.2022 and Irrevocable
General Power of Attorney, dated 28.09.2022
executed by the defendant-Op No. 1 in favour of
plaintiff-petitioner,
(iv) That the defendant-Ops No. 4 and 5 are
further directed to act in terms of the Authorization
Affidavit, dated 28.09.2022, by allowing the
plaintiff-petitioner to operate the Bank account No.
0405050010290 of Punjab National Bank, Sabroom
Branch, IFSC Code No. PUNB0040520 in the name
of M/S P. K. Petroleum Agency, IOC(AOD), and
withdraw Cash and Cheque(s) by putting his
signature(s) for and on behalf of the defendant-Op
No. 1, along with all other incidental powers
flowing from the said Authorization Affidavit, dated
28.09.2022.
34. Thus, the case is disposed of on contest.
35. Make necessary entry in the relevant trial
register."
The business of the petrol pump is being operated with the
Punjab National Bank (PNB, for short) in an arrangement between the
plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 approached the learned
appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.01/2023. The learned appellate Court
has allowed the appeal by setting aside the interim injunction inter alia on
the ground that there is absence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff
and even if the plaintiff succeeds he can be compensated in terms of money
or refund of the earnest money. The plaintiff has therefore approached this
Court in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the
plaintiff-petitioner assisted by Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, submits that the petrol
pump is a running concern on the basis of the agreement for sale undertaken
between the plaintiff and defendant No.1-owner and the accounts of the
petrol pump are being managed under the understating between the two
parties with the intention to repay the outstanding loan amount of the
defendant No.1. The learned trial Court finding a prima facie case in his
favour and also the other two ingredients having been fulfilled, granted a
temporary injunction allowing the plaintiff to operate the bank account in
the PNB.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that if the
agency is not allowed to operate the petrol pump during pendency of the
litigation, not only the plaintiff but the defendant No.1 would also suffer as
the bank will proceed to recover the outstanding loan amount in a
proceeding under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He also submits that that
plaintiff is ready to come forth with a concrete proposal to pay the total loan
amount of defendant No.1 with respondent IDBI Bank in a time bound
phased manner. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be stayed for the
time being so that the issue can be resolved, if possible, by a concrete
settlement between the parties.
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel for the
defendant No.1, has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that the
plaintiff has not abided by the terms of the agreement for sale. The bank, in
such a situation, may proceed to auction sale the suit property and in the
process, the defendant No.1 would be the ultimate loser.
Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned senior Counsel for the
respondent-IOC submits that the dealership was granted in favour of the
defendant No.1 and as per their inspection conducted from time to time they
have not found any irregularity in the operation of the dealership.
Let notice be issued upon respondent No.2, 3, 4 and 5 under
ordinary process and speed post for which requisites be filed by Friday
(02.05.2025).
Notice is made returnable on 20.06.2025.
The Caveat filed by respondent No.1 is discharged.
Vakalatnama has been filed.
In the meantime, the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2025
passed in Misc. Appeal No.01/2023 by the learned District Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia shall remain stayed.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.05.05 15:55:34 +05'30'
