AWAM MARKETING LLP vs M/S ORIENT BEVERAGES LIMITED AND ORS

Court
Calcutta High Court
Case type
APPEAL FROM ORDER
Decided on
01-04-2026
<div> OD-5 <br /> <b>IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA </b><br /> <b>CIVIL APPELLATE DIVISION </b><br /> <b>ORIGINAL SIDE </b><br /> <br /> <br /> <b>APO/144/2023 </b><br /> <b>WITH </b><br /> <b> CS/85/2016 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>AWAM MARKETING LLP </b><br /> <b>VS </b><br /> <b>M/S ORIENT BEVERAGES LIMITED AND ORS </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>BEFORE: </b><br /> <b>The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK </b><br /> <b> -AND- </b><br /> <b>The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Sr. Adv. <br /> Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv. <br /> Ms. Tiana Bhattacharya, Adv. <br /> Mr. Souvik Majumdar, Adv. <br /> Ms. Anyapurba Banerjee, Adv. <br /> <br /> HEARD ON : 01.04.2026 <br /> DELIVERED ON : 01.04.2026 <br /> <br /> <b>DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <i> </i><br /> <b>1.</b> <b> </b> Appeal is at the behest of a plaintiff and directed against the <br /> judgment and order dated December 5, 2022 passed in <br /> GA/4/2021 in CS/85/2016. <br /> <b>2.</b> <b> </b> By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge <br /> dismissed the application for judgment on admission filed by the <br /> appellant. <br /> <b>3.</b> <b> </b> None appears for the respondent despite service. <br /><br /> <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> <b>4.</b> <b> </b> Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be <br /> and remain in possession of the suit property and that, the <br /> defendants are trespassers. Plaintiff also sought for decree of khas <br /> possession and mesne profit. <br /> <b>5.</b> <b> </b> Plaint case of the plaintiff is that initially a lease deed was entered <br /> into. The lease deed expired by efflux of time. Some of the <br /> defendants entered into unlawful possession of the suit property <br /> through some of the lessees. <br /> <b>6.</b> <b> </b> Essentially, plaintiff is seeking recovery of possession and mesne <br /> profit on the basis of expiry of a lease subsisting in respect of an <br /> immovable property against some of the defendants while as <br /> against others as trespassers. <br /> <b>7.</b> <b> </b> Lease deed relates to an immovable property which is used in <br /> commerce that is to say that office spaces were let out. <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>8.</b> In <b>2026:CHC-OS:84-DB (Auto Fuel &amp; Services Vs. Amalgamated </b><br /> <b>Fuels Limited &amp; Anr.)</b> and <b>2026:CHC-OS:85-DB (Indian Oil </b><br /> <b>Corporation Limited Vs. Jayanta Krishna Datta And Another)</b> , <br /> it was held that Section 12A was mandatory. It was also held that, <br /> since, the plaintiff as the lessor was seeking eviction of lessees, <br /> after expiry of the lease, on the ground of such lessees becoming <br /> trespassers, nonetheless, since, the plaint refers to a registered <br /> deed in respect of an immovable property used in commerce <br /> presently, the disputes involved in the suit fell within the meaning <br /> of Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. <br /> <b>9.</b> <b> </b> In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same ratio <br /> as that of <b>Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra)</b> and <b>Auto Fuel </b><br /><br /> <br /> 3 <br /> <br /> <b>&amp; Services (supra)</b> applies. As against some of the defendants the <br /> suit is on the basis of expiring of lease. The other defendants <br /> cannot be said to be not necessary and proper parties. <br /> <b>10.</b> <b> </b> The present suit was filed in 2016. In <b>AIR 2021 Cal 190 (Laxmi </b><br /> <b>Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and </b><br /> <b>Another)</b> , Section 12A was held to be mandatory. <b>Laxmi Polyfab </b><br /> <b>Pvt. Ltd. (supra)</b> was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in <br /> <b>2022 10 SCC 1 (Patil Automation (P) Ltd. Vs. Rakheja </b><br /> <b>Engineers (P) Ltd.</b> . <br /> <b>11.</b> <b> </b> <b>Patil Automation (P) Ltd. (supra)</b> was noticed in <b>2025 9 SCC </b><br /> <b>424 (Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited Vs. Union of India and </b><br /> <b>Anr.)</b> . <br /> <b>12.</b> <b> </b> In <b>Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited (supra)</b> , it was directed that if <br /> the suit was instituted on or after the decision in <b><i>Patil </i></b><br /> <b><i>Automation</i></b> <b><i>(supra) </i></b> i.e. August 20, 2022, without complying with <br /> Section 12A of the Act of 2015, then, it will meet the rejection <br /> under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If, however, <br /> the suit is instituted prior to August 20, 2022 without complying <br /> with Section 12A of the Act of 2015 and the same does not fall <br /> within the exceptional categories, then, it would be open to the <br /> Court to keep the suit in abeyance and direct the parties to explore <br /> the possibility of mediation with the Act of 2015. The present suit <br /> was instituted in 2016. Obviously, it was prior to August 20, 2022. <br /> <b>13.</b> <b> </b> Since, the suit involves a commercial dispute within the meaning <br /> of the Act of 2015, it would be appropriate to invoke powers under <br /> Section 15 of the Act of 2015 and direct the Department to <br /><br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br /> transfer CS/85/2016 to the Commercial Division. Department will <br /> allot a new number immediately on transmission of CS/85/2016 <br /> to the Commercial Division. Immediately on transfer of <br /> CS/85/2016, Department will treat CS/85/2016 as disposed of in <br /> its records. <br /> <b>14.</b> <b> </b> The impugned judgment and order was passed on December 5, <br /> 2022 in the non-Commercial Division. The learned Single Judge <br /> did not notice that the suit involved a commercial dispute within <br /> the meaning of the Act of 2015. Learned Single Judge did not pass <br /> the impugned judgment and order in the Commercial Division. <br /> <b>15.</b> <b> </b> In such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dated <br /> December 5, 2022 is set aside. The application on which the <br /> impugned judgment and order was passed is revived. Such <br /> application may be decided by the learned Single Judge, in <br /> accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned <br /> judgment and order dated December 5, 2022, in any manner <br /> whatsoever. <br /> <b>16.</b> <b> </b> APO/144/2023 is disposed of without any order as to costs. <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) </b><br /> <b>17.</b> <b> </b> I agree. <br /> <br /> <b>(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)</b> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> KB <br /> AR(CR) </div>