Disposed

Yajur Fibres Limited v. Dharmendra Tiwari and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Nov 2023FMAT/449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Calcutta discharged judicial power lost due to the Judge-in-charge's medical leave and transfer, directing a fresh hearing of a temporary injunction application within two weeks, while extending the existing *ad interim* injunction for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Court of Additional District Judge to hear and dispose of the temporary injunction application within a fortnight; extended the *ad interim* injunction for three weeks.

Yajur Fibres Limited Vs Dharmendra Tiwari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

09.02.2024

¶2

Court : 04 Item : 01 Matter : F MAT Status : OP Bench ID : 266176 Transcriber : NANDY

¶3

In the high court at Calcutta Civil appellate jurisdiction

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

FMAT 449 of 2023 with CAN 3 of 2024

¶6

Yajur Fibres Limited Vs. Dharmendra Tiwari & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Advocate

¶8

……for the Appellant

¶9

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Mukherjee, Advocate

¶10

……for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6

¶11

CAN 3 of 2024

¶12

The technicalities cannot stand in the way of rendering the substantial justice. The moment the technicalities are pitted against the social justice, the latter would prevail.

¶13

The instant appeal was disposed of 22.11.2023 with the specific direction upon the Trial Court to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within the time framed therein. This Court was of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case and, therefore, passed an ad interim order of injunction to operate for a further period of two months with an avowed object that the application for temporary injunction would be disposed of within such time.

¶14

It has been informed to us, which is also reflected from an application taken out by the appellant that the hearing was concluded by the learned Judge-incharge and the matter was reserved for judgment. However, the learned Judge-in-charge became

¶15

¶16

indisposed and took medical leave which constrained him from delivering the judgment and subsequently he has been transferred from the said post.

¶17

It is unfortunate that a put-up petition was sought to be moved before the Judge-in-charge of the Court, but the same was not taken on record; rather the copy of the said put-up petition is also annexed with the said application revealing that the same was served upon the learned Advocate for the opposite party who put an endorsement thereupon in this regard.

¶18

The moment the Appellate Court has directed the matter to be disposed of within a timeframe and passed an ad interim order of injunction to operate for a limited period, it is improbable, unreasonable that the learned Judge would not take up the put-up petition and pass an appropriate order thereupon.

¶19

A technical plea has been taken by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the respondents, obviously taking advantage of such impasse having been created that the Appellate Court is denuded of power to pass any direction in the instant appeal.

¶20

We are un-impressed with the aforesaid submissions as a person cannot take advantage of the procedural lapses and reap the benefit therefrom. The procedure is the handmade of justice and cannot be treated as a jealous mistress. The substantial justice is paramount and if the parties cannot be saddled with any lapses on their part, the law does not stand as an impediment in extending the justice to the litigant.

¶21

We, therefore, dispose of the instant application being CAN 3 of 2024 directing the Judge-in-charge i.e. the Second Court of Additional District Judge, to hear out the application for temporary injunction afresh and shall dispose of the same within a fortnight from date.

¶22

¶23

The ad interim order of injunction granted on 22.11.2023 is extended for a period of three weeks from date or until further order, whichever is earlier.

¶24

It is, however, made clear that none of the parties would seek adjournment except necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances; even in this regard, the learned Judge would adhere to the time limit set forth herein and if necessary, shall fix the matter on day-to-day basis.

¶25

For abundant precaution it is once again reiterated that the consideration at the time of passing an ad interim order of injunction is different from the consideration at the time of disposal of an application for temporary injunction and, therefore, the learned Judge shall not be swayed by the fact that this Court has passed an ad interim order of injunction.

¶26

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶27

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

Yajur Fibres Limited v. Dharmendra Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yajur Fibres Limited v. Dharmendra Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabit Sekh Vs Ujran Nesa Bibi and Ors.

Treasure Island Pre School and Ors. Vs M/S Crossworld Learnign Sytem Opc Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ms Yummygra Chains Private Limited Vs Mukesh Kumar Singhania

Womens Co-Ordinating Council Vs Pulse Diagonostics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Abdul Hamid Khan Vs Minor Ser Ali Khan and Anr.

Samir Mondal Vs Sk Kutubuddin and Ors.