Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY
Power Tools and Appliances Co Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Pinaki Roychowdhury – Respondent
Judgment :
Aniruddha Roy, J.
1. Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior counsel appears for the plaintiff/opposite party in C.O. 3767 of 2025.
2. Mr. Jay Saha, learned counsel appears for the plaintiff/opposite party in C.O. 3767 of 2025.
3. Both being the plaintiffs in these two applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India submit that both these applications arose from the same impugned order passed by the civil court in the same civil suit.
4. Opposite parties are also represented by various learned counsel namely, Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv., Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. adv., led by Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. (VC), Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
5. All the learned advocates and the respective parties have agreed that both these applications can be taken up together and can be considered by a single composite order.
6. Hence both the applications are taken up together for consideration.
7. These are applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein an ex parte ad interim order dated September 25, 2025 has been assailed passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court, Alipore, South 24
The necessity of reasoned orders in judicial proceedings is mandated, as a non-speaking order is void and impacts the legality of such decisions.
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable if the conditions for appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not met, emphasizing the need to adhere....
A dissolved entity cannot maintain a suit as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rendering any orders passed by a court lacking jurisdiction illegal.
Judicial orders, particularly those granting injunctions, must be reasoned and demonstrate the application of legal standards to the facts; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, in cases where the dispute involves allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by an auditor of a c....
The failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before passing orders affecting parties' rights, reinforcing the supervisory nature of Article 227 over judicial decisions.
Writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against judicial orders in civil proceedings; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available for such cases.
The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte orders under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when the contract in question is deemed determinable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
