B AND A LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs AMREX MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Before:
The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 2739 of 2026
B&A Limited & Anr.
Versus
Amrex Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anunoy Basu
….. advocates

For the Opposite Party no. 1 : Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee
Mr. Himaghna Jain
Mr. Steven S. Biswas
Mr. Siddharth Singh
…advocates

For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya
Ms. Pallavi Gogoi
…advocates

For the respondent no.18 : Mr. Pratip Mukherjee
Mr. Surajit Basu …advocates

Heard on : 28.08.2026

Order passed on : 01.09.2026

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the
instance of the alleged contemnor nos. 2 and 14 and is directed against an
order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, Senior Division,
Page 1 of 16

First Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (S) in Misc. case no. 200 of 2026
arising out of title suit no. 715 of 2026.
2. By the order impugned the opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the said Misc.
Case were directed to make personal appearance before the Court on
03.09.2026 and the opposite party nos. 3 to 17 therein were restrained from
acting upon or implementing or giving any further effect to any of the
resolutions passed at the AGM held that 30.07.2026 including the
reappointment of the opposite party no. 15 which was to take effect from
12.08.2026 till 03.09.2026.
3. Facts giving rise to this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India in a nut shell are as follows.
(a) The opposite party no. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit no.
715 of 2026 against the opposite party no. 1, 2,3,4 and B & A Limited.
nd
B & A Limited is impleaded as the 2 defendant in the suit and the
st
opposite party no. 2 herein is impleaded as the 1 defendant in the
said suit. The opposite party no. 1 claims to be a substantial minority
shareholder of B & A Limited holding 3,31,934 equity shares
constituting 10.707% of the total paid up share capital and voting
rights of the defendant no. 2 /company as part of a group acting in
concert. The plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 states that the defendant
no. 2 is a publicly listed company having 2,056 public shareholders
collectively holding 40.53% of the total share capital as per the
shareholding pattern for the quarter ending on 31.03.2026 filed with
the Bombay Stock Exchange (for short “BSE”).

(b) The opposite party no.1 states that the defendant no. 1/opposite party
no. 2 herein filed Form C with defendant no. 2 purporting to disclose
her shareholding in the defendant no. 2 company as 11,78,118 equity
shares (38%) as a result of transposition of the name on the death of
the first holder of the joint demat account maintained with the
defendant no. 4 bank. A copy of the Form C was forwarded by e-mail
Page 2 of 16

on 15.11.2025 to the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 at its registered
office.
(c) The opposite party no. 1 states that foundation of Form C rests upon
transposition of 8,61,918 equity shares effected on 12.11.2025 in
deliberate violation of the interim order dated 24.09.2025 passed by
the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by virtue of which the defendant no.
1 was restrained from transferring the said shares. The Hon’ble
Guwahati High Court directed revision of 8,61, 918 equity shares and
the defendant no. 1 challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble
Guwahati High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
was unsuccessful in the said challenge.
(d) The defendant no. 2 in its disclosure before the BSE for the quarter
ending December, 2025 appended a note recording that the said share
was shown in violation of the injunction order. The defendant no. 2
filed a revised BSE disclosure dated 19.02.2026 correcting the share
of the defendant no. 1’s shareholding to 3,16,200 equity shares
(10.20%). The extract of Register of Members of the defendant no. 2 as
on 31.03.2026 shows Hemendra Prosad Barooah as holder of
8,61,918 shares and Sharmila Shetty i.e., the defendant no. 1 as
holder of 3,16,200 shares only.
(e) The impugned Form C conceals the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2016
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil No.) 5807 of 2016
restraining the defendant no. 1 from transferring or creating third
party rights in respect of the 2,21,230 shares claimed therein. The
impugned Form C has never been withdrawn.
(f) On the grounds as aforesaid, the opposite party no. 1 prayed for
declaration that Form C dated 14.11.2025 filed by the defendant no. 1
with the defendant no. 2 purporting to disclose defendant no. 1’s
shareholding in defendant no. 2 as 11,78,118 equity shares (38%) is
Page 3 of 16

null and void and of no legal effect and for permanent injunction and
other consequential reliefs.
4. In connection with the said suit the opposite party no. 1 filed an application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code praying for an order of temporary
injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from relying upon and from giving
any effect to the impugned Form C dated 14.11.2025 or any rights claimed
therein. The opposite party no. 1 also sought for a temporary injunction
restraining the defendant no. 2 /B & A company its Board of Directors,
Company Secretary and Officers from giving any effect to the impugned
Form C dated 14.11.2025 and for temporary injunction restraining the
defendant no. 4/ Bank from acting upon any instruction of the defendant
no. 1 in respect of the scheduled shares and from transferring,
transposition, dealing or creating any incumbrances or other demat action
in respect of 8,61,918 equity shares of the defendant no. 2 lying in the joint
demat account and 3,16,200 equity shares of the defendant no. 2 lying in
the sole demat account maintained with the defendant no. 4 /Bank.
5. The opposite party no.1 also sought for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Judge granted leave to the
opposite party no. 1 under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
sue and prosecute the present suit in a representative capacity on behalf of
all public shareholders of B & A Limited who are similarly interested in the
subject matter of the suit.
6. The learned Trial Judge, by an order dated 19.05.2026, allowed the prayer
for ad interim order of injunction.

7. Alleging that the opposite party nos. 2 to 18 and the petitioner no. 2 herein
acted in breach of the ad interim order of injunction dated 19.05.2026, the
opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc.
Case no. 200 of 2026.
Page 4 of 16

8. In connection with the said Misc. Case, the opposite party no. 1 filed an
application under Section 94(c) and (e) read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure praying for mandatory injunction and personal appearance
of the opposite parties in the Misc. Case.
9. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) First Court
at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (S) directed personal appearance of the
opposite party nos. 1 to 17 before the Court on 03.09.2026 and also allowed
the ad interim prayer thereby restraining the opposite parties from acting
upon, implementing or giving any further effect to any of the resolutions
passed at the AGM held on 30.07.2026 including the re-appointment of the
opposite party no. 15 of the Misc. Case which was to take effect from
12.08.2026 till 03.09.2026.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant no. 2/ company and
the opposite party no. 14 of the Misc. Case approached this Court.
11. Mr. Banerjee learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the
persons against whom no order of injunction was passed in the suit could
not have been impleaded as parties in the Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule
2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the learned Judge
ought not to have passed an order directing personal appearance of the
opposite parties in the Misc. Case by way of an ad interim order. He
contended that the instant suit is barred under the provisions of Section
430 of the Company’s Act, 2013 and, therefore, no ad interim order could
have been passed in a Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of
Civil Procedure. He further contended that there is no scope to pass an ad
interim order in a Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Mr. Banerjee contended that the notice under Order 39 Rule 2A
of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued only on 02.08.2026 and the Misc.
Case under Order 39 Rule 2A was filed on 04.08.2026 and an ad interim
order was passed on 04.08.2026. He further submitted that before the order
dated 04.08.2026 was passed, a revised report of the scrutiniser with the
revised voting results have already been submitted before the BSE which are
Page 5 of 16

available in the public domain and within the knowledge of the opposite
party no. 1. Mr. Banerjee concluded by submitting that corrective measures
have already been taken.
12. Mr. Chatterjee learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.
2 also submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the
statutory bar under Section 430 of the Company’s Act, 2013. He submitted
that since the suit is not maintainable, the order dated 19.05.2016 and
subsequent orders passed in the suit are nullity in the eye of law. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge
directing personal appearance of the opposite parties in a Misc. Case before
the Court on 03.09.2026 is without jurisdiction.
13. Mr. Srivastava learned Senior Counsel representing the opposite party no. 1
seriously disputed the contention of Mr. Banerjee. By referring to the
expression “the person guilty of such disobedience or breach” used in Rule
2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Srivastava would contend
that the said expression would bring within its fold not only those who are
parties to the main proceedings but even those who are not parties to the
suit but have notice or knowledge of the said order. In support of such
contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Krishna Gupta vs. Sh. Narendra Nath and another
reported at 2017 SCC Online Del 10990 . Mr. Srivastava further contended
that in case of disobedience of an injunction granted under Rule 1 or Rule 2
of Order 39 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was
granted, the Court has the power to order the person guilty of such
disobedience or beach to be detained in civil prison. He submitted that the
ad interim order directing personal appearance of the opposite parties is in
aid of such final relief. In support of his contention that a direction for
personal appearance of the persons who have acted in breach of the order of
injunction can be passed by way of an ad interim order, he placed reliance
upon a judgment dated 22.07.2019 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Page 6 of 16

FAO(OS) 129 with FAO(OS) 88/2019 in the case of Chuckles Kohli and
ors. vs. Ravinder Singh .
14. Mr. Srivastava contended that the scope of interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is very limited and in support of such contention
he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. And another vs. B.
Gurappa Naidu and others reported at (2026) SCC Online SC 745 . Mr.
Srivastava contended that the order directing personal appearance of the
persons who acted in breach of an order of injunction falls within the scope
of the power of the Court while dealing with an application under Order 39
Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and such an order should not be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Mr. Srivastava further contended that the steps that
may have been taken by the petitioner to purge the contempt cannot be
considered at this stage.

15. Mr. Srivastava further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Limited and another reported at (1996) 4 SCC 622 .
In support of his contention that the object of Order 39 Rule 2A will be
fulfilled if a mandatory direction is passed to set the wrong right and to
undo the wrong in the interest of justice.
16. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
placed.
17. Though several points were raised by the learned Senior Counsels for the
respective parties in course of argument but the immediate relief sought for
by the petitioner is by way of an order of stay of the portion of the impugned
order directing personal appearance of the opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the
Misc. Case.
Page 7 of 16

18. Record reveals that the learned Trial Judge passed an ad interim order of
injunction on 19.05.2026 which was to remain in force till 19.06.2026. The
operative portion of the order dated 19.05.2026 is extracted hereinafter-
“ORDERED
that the prayer for ad interim order of temporary injunction is allowed.
Defendant No. 1, Sharmila Vijay Shetty, her men, agents, servants and
attorneys, are hereby restrained from relying upon, acting upon or giving
any effect to the impugned Form C dated 14.11.2025 or to any rights
claimed thereunder in respect of the Schedule shares, and from
exercising any voting rights or dealing in any manner with the Schedule
shares, Defendant No. 1 is further hereby restrained from filing any fresh
statutory disclosure claiming ownership of the Schedule shares except in
strict compliance with a specific prior order of a Court of competent
jurisdiction.
Defendant No. 2, B & A Limited, its Board of Directors, Company
Secretary, officers and all persons acting on its behalf, are further hereby
restrained from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned Form C
dated 14.11.2025, including in any filing, general meeting or disclosure
to BSE, and from counting or giving effect to any votes cast by Defendant
No. 1 in respect of the Schedule shares;
Defendant No. 4, HDFC Bank Limited, its officers, servants and agents,
are further hereby restrained from in any manner acting upon any
instruction of Defendant No. 1 in respect of the Schedule shares and from
in any manner permitting any transfer, transposition, dealing, pledge,
encumbrance or any other demat action in respect of: (i) the 8,61,918
equity shares of Defendant No. 2 lying in the joint demat account bearing
DPID IN 301151, Client ID 26424547, maintained with Defendant No. 4;
and (ii) the 3,16,200 equity shares of Defendant No. 2 lying in the sole
demat account of Defendant No. 1 bearing DPID IN 300476, Client ID
40436310, maintained with Defendant No. 4 except in strict compliance
with a specific prior order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
This order shall remain in force till 19.06.2026. The Plaintiffs shall serve
copies of the plaint, application with annexures and this order upon the
Defendants and file affidavit of service.
Issue notice upon the defendants to show cause by the next date fixed as
to why the temporary injunction shall not be passed against them.
Plaintiff is directed to put requisites.
Plaintiff is further directed to comply the provision under Order 39 Rule
3(a) and 3(b) of CPC.
Page 8 of 16

Fix 19.06.2026 for further order. ”

19. The ad interim order dated 19.05.2026 was extended on 19.06.2026 till
03.08.2026.
20. In the Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure it
has been alleged that the AGM of the defendant no. 2 company was held on
30.07.2026. It has been further alleged that the defendant company
forwarded the voting results and the consolidated scrutinisers report dated
31.07.2026 in respect of all five resolutions that were placed before the said
AGM. It is further stated that on perusal of the voting results and the
consolidated scrutiniser’s report it appears that in respect of each of the five
resolutions placed before the AGM the defendant no. 1 is shown to have cast
votes against each resolution, the number of such votes being 3,16,200 i.e.,
exact number of shares comprising Block B of the scheduled shares lying in
the defendant no. 1 sole demat account. It has been further alleged in the
said Misc. Case that the scrutiniser’s report is completely silent as to the
subsisting order of injunction dated 19.05.2026 as extended on 19.06.2026
whereby a restraint order was passed from counting of votes of the
defendant no. 1 in respect of the entire share holding comprising the 38%
equity shares claimed under impugned Form C of which 3,16,200 shares of
Block B forms a specific and identifiable part. In the said Misc. Case under
Order 39 Rule 2A the opposite party no. 1 apart from praying for an order of
attachment of the property of the opposite parties and an order for detention
in civil prison also sought for a mandatory injunction directing the
defendant no. 2 to file a corrective disclosure before BSE clarifying that the
votes of the defendant no. 1 are subject to subsisting order of injunction
passed by the learned Trial Judge and have not been validly counted.
21. In the said Misc. Case, the opposite party no. 1 filed an application under
Section 94 (c) and (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim
order restraining the opposite parties from opposite parties of the Misc. Case
from acting upon or implementing or giving any effect to any of the
Page 9 of 16

resolutions passed in the AGM held on 30.07.2026 including the
reappointment of the opposite party no. 15 which was due to take effect
from 12.08.2026. Pending disposal of the Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule
2A the opposite party no. 1 prayed for a direction upon the opposite party
nos. 1 to 17 to enter personal appearance before the learned Judge on a
date that may be specified by the learned Judge.
22. By the impugned order, the learned Judge directed personal appearance of
the opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the Misc. Case.

23. After going through the application under Section 94 (c) and (e) of the Code
of Civil Procedure this Court finds that the ground on which the personal
appearance is sought for is to enforce compliance of the orders passed by
the learned Trial Judge.
24. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Jagjit Singh Khanna vs. Dr. Rakhal Das
Mullick reported at AIR 1988 Cal 95 held that the expression “prescribed”
in Section 94 would obviously mean, as defined in Section 2(16) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, “prescribed by rules”. The rules which prescribe grant of
temporary injunction are Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 and therefore, a
temporary injunction may be granted under Section 94(c) only if a case
satisfies the requirements or Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. The Court does not
have two sources of power-one under Section 94(c) and another under Order
39 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that one may resort to one or the other
as and when necessary. But under the Code of Civil Procedure the Court
grants temporary injunction only under one set of provisions, namely
Section 94(c) read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

25. After noticing the decision in the case of Jagjit Singh Khanna (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vareed Jacob vs. Sosamma
Geevarghese & Ors. reported at (2004) 6 SCC 378 held that the source of
the power of the Court to grant interim relief is under Section 94. However,
exercise of that power can only be done if the circumstances of the case fall
under the rules. Therefore, when a matter comes before the Court, the Court
Page 10 of 16

has to examine the facts of each case and ascertain whether the ingredients
of Section 94 read with the rules in an order are satisfied and accordingly
grant an appropriate relief. The Courts will grant temporary injunction if the
case satisfies Order 39.
26. Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code states that the Court shall in all cases, except
where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated
by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application
for the same to be given to the opposite party. Proviso thereto states that
where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice to the
opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the
object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay.
27. It is now well settled that the Court shall have to record the reasons why an
ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. The requirement for recording reasons
for grant of an ex parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. A
party which invokes the jurisdiction of the Court for grant of an order of
restraint against the party, without affording an opportunity to him of being
heard must satisfy the Court about the gravity of the situation and the
Court has to consider such factors in the ex parte order. ( See Shiv Kumar
Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. reported at [(1993) 3
SCC 161 (paragraph 34-35)].
28. In the case on hand, the learned Judge on an application under Section
94(c) and (e) passed an ex parte order directing personal appearance of the
opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure on 03.09.2026.

29. No reasons have been recorded in the order impugned which prompted the
learned Judge to direct personal appearance of the parties on 03.09.2026 by
way of an ex parte order.
30. It is now well settled that there is a vast difference between enforcement of
orders passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and orders made under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Orders which are passed in contempt of court are
Page 11 of 16

made primarily to punish the offender by imposing a fine or a jail sentence
or both. On the other hand Order 39 Rule 2A is primarily intended to
enforce orders passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and for that purpose the
civil courts are given vast powers which include the power to attach
property, apart from passing orders of imprisonment which are punitive in
nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code
of Civil Procedure provides for enforcement of a decree for permanent
injunction. Order 21 Rule 32 provides for attachment of property and/or
detention in a civil prison. Orders that are passed under Order 21 Rule 32
are primarily intended to enforce injunction decrees by methods similar to
those contained in Order 39 Rule 2A. Thus, the object of Order 39 Rule 2A
is primarily to enforce orders of interim injunction. (see Amazon. Com NV
Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors reported at (2022)
1 SCC 209, paragraph-61 ).
31. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Century Flour Mills Limited
vs. Suppiah reported at AIR 1975 Mad 270 held that where an act is done
in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Court as a
policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong
doing. It was further observed that the inherent power of the Court is not
only available in such a case but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong
in the interest of justice by putting back the parties in the same position as
they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
32. A question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench in the
case of Sujit Pal vs. Prabir Kumar Sun reported at AIR 1986 Cal 220
whether the Court has inherent power to grant a temporary mandatory
injunction to restore things to their former condition. The Hon’ble Division
Bench observed that under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, the Court cannot
grant immediate relief to a party. If the injury is grave and where restoring
things to their former condition is the only remedy, the Hon’ble Division
Bench held that the Court has to take steps in exercise of its inherent
powers. The very object for which Order 39 Rule 2A has been enacted will be
Page 12 of 16

fulfilled by grant of temporary mandatory injunction by restoring things to
its former condition.
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority (supra) after
reiterating the well settled proposition of law that a contemnor ought not to
be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt noticed the
decisions in the case of Century Flour Mills (supra) and Sujit Pal (supra)
held that the Court must ensure full justice between the parties before it.
34. It follows from the aforesaid discussion that the Court in exercise of its
inherent powers can direct restoration of things to its former condition in
fulfilment of the object under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code.
35. In the Misc. Case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, the opposite party
no. 1 sought for an order for attachment of the property of the petitioner no.
1 and the opposite party no. 2 herein and an order of detention in civil
prison of the opposite party no. 1 herein, the petitioner no. 2 and the
opposite party nos. 5 to 18. The opposite party no. 1 also prayed for
mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner no. 1 company, its Board of
Directors, Company Secretary from giving any further effect to the
resolutions passed at the AGM held on 30.07.2026 and for a direction upon
the petitioner no. 1 to file corrective disclosures with BSE Limited.
36. The instant suit is for a declaration that the Form C dated 14.11.2025 filed
by the defendant no. 1/ opposite party no. 2 herein with the petitioner no.
1/company to be null and void and for permanent injunction from giving
any effect to the impugned Form C.
37. By the order dated 19.05.2026 as recorded supra an ad interim order of
injunction was passed restraining the opposite party no. 2 from exercising
any voting rights or dealing in any manner with the schedule shares and the
petitioner no. 1/company was restrained from giving any effect to the
impugned Form C and from counting or giving any effect to the votes cast by
the opposite party no. 2 in respect of the schedule shares.
Page 13 of 16

38. The allegation made by the opposite party no. 1 in the application under
Section 94(c) and (e) read with Section 151 is that in the AGM held on
30.07.2026, the opposite party no. 2 voted against all the 5 resolutions and
the said votes were counted, tabulated and certified in the Scrutinizer’s
Report and was reported to BSE by the petitioner no. 1 vide letter dated
31.07.2026.
39. The learned Judge returned a finding in the impugned order that the
resolutions, upon exclusion of the votes cast by the defendant no. 1, would
in any event stand carried.
40. The learned Judge may be right in observing that the fate of the resolution
passed in the AGM held on 30.07.2026 is not relevant for deciding whether
there was any breach of the order of injunction.
41. The question that arises for consideration is whether an order restraining
the petitioner no. 1/ company from acting upon, implementing or giving any
further effect to the resolutions passed at the AGM held on 30.07.2026 for a
limited period could have been passed by way of an ad interim relief.
42. This issue shall be considered after hearing the parties at length.
43. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in B. Gurappa Naidu (supra) though that power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be
exercised where there is an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction by a
Court not vested with such jurisdiction or any case of gross abuse of
jurisdiction. The power of superintendence may be invoked where there is
an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Court. While
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court
could not have acted as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment
for that of the subordinate court to correct an error which was not apparent
on the face of the record.

Page 14 of 16

44. If the object of Order 39 Rule 2A is to enforce the order of injunction, this
Court is of the prima facie view that a direction for personal appearance of
the opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the Misc. Case may not be necessary at
this stage. Direction for personal appearance by an ex parte ad interim order
without recording any reasons in support thereof cannot be supported by
this Court.
45. The direction for personal appearance of the parties by an ex parte order
without assigning reasons is against the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as observed supra .
46. Since the learned Judge failed to record reasons for passing an ex parte
order directing personal appearance of the parties, this Court is inclined to
entertain this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
pass an interim order.
47. In Chuckles Kohli (supra) inspite of an opportunity being afforded to file
reply to application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
no reply was filed nor the costs have been paid. For such reason the Court
directed the defendants to appear in person before the Court on the next
date of hearing and imposed cost upon the defendants. The said decision
being distinguishable on facts cannot come to the aid of the opposite party
no. 1 in the case on hand.
48. This Court refrains from making any observation at this stage as to the
applicability of the decision in the case of Krishna Gupta (supra).
49. There shall be an order of stay of operation of the portion of the order dated
04.08.2026 passed by the learned civil judge (Senior Division) first court at
Alipore, 24 Parganas (S) in Misc. Case no. 200 of 2026 directing personal
appearance of the opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in the Misc. Case till the end
of the month of December, 2026 or until further orders which is earlier.
50. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India upon the non-appearing opposite parties by
Page 15 of 16

registered speed post that acknowledgment due and file and affidavit of
service on the next date.
51. List this matter in the monthly list of November, 2026.
52. It is however, made clear that pendency of this application shall not
preclude the learned Judge from proceeding with the hearing of the Misc.
Case and the connected application.

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Page 16 of 16