SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3269

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE HANUMAN ESTATES LIMITED – Respondent
APD 14 / 2023



##PAGE1##

OD-7

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

APD/14/2023

WITH

CS/12/2013

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

VS

THE HANUMAN ESTATES LIMITED

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

-AND-

The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

For the Appellant : Mr. Debajyoti Datta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arijit Doss Mullick, Adv.

Ms. Pallabi Sardar, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv.

Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Rohan Raj, Adv.

Mr. Tamoghna Chattopadhyay, Adv.

HEARD ON : 06.05.2026

DELIVERED ON : 06.05.2026

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of a defendant in a suit for eviction and

directed against the judgment and decree dated December 20,

2022. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Trial Judge,

accepted the report of the Special Referee, fixing mesne profit.

##PAGE2##

2

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the

sequence of events occurring in the suit. He submits that, on May

7, 2015, a decree for eviction was passed under Chapter XIIIA of

the Original Side Rules. He points out that, the Commercial Courts

Act, 2015 came into force on October 23, 2015. He refers to the

fixation of specified value subsequent thereto. He submits that, on

November 15, 2018, State Government issued a Notification

declaring specified value of commercial suit to be not less than

Rs.1 crore. He points out that, on February 20, 2020, an

application was filed for appointment of Special Referee to assess

the mesne profit. A Special Referee was appointed on February 27,

2020. Subsequently, the Special Referee submitted a report. The

appellant took the exception to the report by way of an application

being IA No. GA/6/2020 while, the respondent filed an application

being IA No. GA/5/2020 for acceptance of the report.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the

suit was not transferred to the Commercial Division although, the

subject matter of the suit involved commercial disputes within the

meaning of the Act of 2015. He relies upon the judgment and order

dated April 20, 2026 passed in APO/25/2025 (Rajshri

Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.E. Thomson and Company Ltd.),

AIR 1954 SC 340 (Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan), judgment

and order dated April 1, 2026 passed in APO/144/2023 (Awam

Marketting LLP Vs. M/S. Orient Beverages Limited and Ors.),

2019 SCC Online Cal 3215 (Surajit Sen Vs. Royal Bank of

##PAGE3##

3

Scotland NV), 2026 SCC Online Cal 468 (Tractel Tirfor India

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tractel International S.A.S) and APO/48/2021

(Starlift Services Private Limited Vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee

Port, Kolkata) in support of proposition that, the Court passing

the impugned judgment and decree did not possess requisite

jurisdiction under the Act of 2015 and therefore, the same is a

nullity.

4. Referring to the merits of the case, learned Advocate appearing for

the appellant submits that, the Special Referee erred in fixing the

rate of mesne profit in the manner as done. He submits that,

although the learned Special Referee as also the learned Trial

Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that, the property

concerned was without any amenities as available to the other

properties which were taken into consideration for the purpose of

fixation of the mesne profit. He points out that, facilities such as

car parking spaces, lifts and V. Satellite facility, ATM and other

amenities were not available at the subject premises while, they

were available to other properties.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent refers to the

order dated April 22, 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Civil Appeal No. 006873 of 2026 [SLP (C) No. 8111 of 2026]

(Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of

India Ltd.) to contend that, since, the learned Judge passing the

impugned order was also with the relevant determination/roster of

the Commercial Division, the impugned judgment and order

##PAGE4##

4

cannot be faulted on the basis as sought to be contended by the

app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top