Parveen Jain and Anr. v. Tulsan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Jul 2025FMAT/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of order dated 04.11.2024 passed by Bench without roster determination; Larger Bench reference answered affirmatively on 03.07.2025; order held nullity ab initio, void for inherent lack of jurisdiction; CAN 4 of 2025 allowed; CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 recalled; injunction application in FMAT 269 of 2024; no costs; liberty to mention before appropriate Division Bench; parties: Shri Praveen Jain v. Tulsan Properties Private Limited; judges: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar.

What did the court decide?

CAN 4 of 2025 allowed: the order dated November 4, 2024 passed by this court in connection with FMAT 269 of 2024, along with CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024, is recalled; no order as to costs; liberty to the parties to mention the main matter before the appropriate Division Bench having determination. ¶¶16

Parveen Jain and Anr. Vs Tulsan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

18^th August, 2025 (AK) 16

¶2

F.M.A.T 269 of 2024 IA No: CAN 4 of 2025

¶3

Shri Praveen Jain and another Vs.

¶4

Tulsan Properties Private Limited and another

¶5

Mr. Hamidul Haque Mr. Bhupendra Gupta ...for the appellants. Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee Ms. Mobina Ali Ms. Srijeeta Gupta Ms. Sonia Das

¶6

...for the respondents.

¶7

In Re: CAN 4 of 2025

¶8

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.

¶9

The present application has been filed for recall of an order dated November 4, 2024 passed by this Bench in connection with an application for injunction.

¶10

Previously, this Bench had formulated a question and referred the matter for resolution by a Larger Bench.

¶11

The point of reference was as follows: “Whether an order passed by a Bench of this Court not being conferred with determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to

¶12

¶13

render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law or void ab initio ”.

¶14

The reference has since been answered by a Larger Bench constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice by an order dated July 3, 2025, whereby the reference was answered in the affirmative, by holding that such an order, by a Bench not having determination, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio .

¶15

In view of such answer to the reference, the order dated November 4, 2024 by this court is deemed to be a nullity ab initio .

¶16

Accordingly, CAN 4 of 2025 is allowed, thereby recalling the order dated November 4, 2024 passed by this court in connection with FMAT 269 of 2024 along with CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024.

¶17

There will be no order as to costs.

¶18

Liberty to the parties to mention the main matter before the appropriate Division Bench having determination.

¶19

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶20

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Parveen Jain and Anr. v. Tulsan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Jain and Anr. v. Tulsan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Emami Limited Vs Dabur India Limited

Lakshi Kanta Panda Vs Sudipta Panda

Shaktipada Maity and Ors. Vs Lakshman Maity and Ors.

Sankari Sett and Ors. Vs Deb Narayan Bose and Anr.

Asit Naran Mitra Vs Amiya Kumar Mitra and Ors.

Sajib Maity Vs Kalpana Mondal