Abhijit Das Vs Gautam Das — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Abhijit Das Vs Gautam Das — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant has shown sufficient reason for the huge delay of about 1041 days in preferring the appeal against the ad interim order of injunction dated March 02, 2022, the limitation for which was ninety days from the date of the order.

Court's answer

The remedy of the appellant against the delay in disposal of the injunction application or the suit in the court below lies by way of a proper application or a complaint before the Bench taking up matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and is absolutely unrelated to the present challenge against the ad interim order of injunction.

Ratio / Principle

Such inaction of the trial court, even if any, does not furnish a defence for the huge delay in preferring the present appeal; the limitation for preferring an appeal against an ad interim order was ninety days from the date of the order.

Key takeaways

No sufficient reason was shown by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal FMAT 32 of 2025 (Abhijit Das in person v. Gautam Das), decided 10.06.2025 by a Bench comprising Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ., was dismissed as time-barred. The appeal challenged an ad interim order of injunction dated March 02, 2022 and was filed after a delay of about 1041 days, although the limitation for such an appeal was ninety days. The appellant explained that he had refrained from appealing in the expectation that a direction of a learned Single Judge dated September 13, 2023 in C.O. No. 2512 of 2023, asking the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the suit, would be complied with; it was not. The court held that any remedy for such inaction of the trial court lay by way of a proper application or complaint before the Bench taking up matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and was absolutely unrelated to the challenge against the ad interim injunction; such inaction furnished no defence to the delay, and no sufficient reason for the delay was shown. IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 was dismissed on contest, FMAT 32 of 2025 was dismissed as time-barred, and CAN 2 of 2025 stood dismissed, with no order as to costs.

AD-24 Ct No.16 10.06.2025 TN

FMAT 32 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

Abhijit Das (in person) Vs. Gautam Das

Mr. Abhijit Das

….petitioner/appellant in person

Mr. Francis Samson Correa, Mr. Sunny Nandy, Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Ms. Sneha Singh

….for the respondent

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

The present appeal has been preferred against an ad interim order of injunction dated March 02, 2022. The appellant/petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the appellant was under the impression that a direction given by a learned Single Judge of this court on September 13, 2023 in C.O. No. 2512 of 2023, asking the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the suit, would be complied with. However, the same has not been complied with by the learned Trial Judge. It is submitted by the appellant/petitioner that since he was under the presumption that the order of this court would be complied with, he did not take any step to prefer the appeal.

2

Ultimately, since the said timeline stipulated in the order of the learned Single Judge was not complied with, the appellant was prompted to prefer the present appeal.

However, upon hearing the appellant appearing in person as well as the learned Advocate for the respondent, we are unable to convince ourselves as to the sufficiency of the reasons for the huge delay of about 1041 days in filing the appeal.

The remedy of the appellant, in the event the appellant was aggrieved by the delay in disposal of the injunction application or the suit in the court below, is absolutely unrelated with the present challenge against the ad interim order of injunction. Such remedy against the inaction of the trial court, if any, would lie by way of a proper application or a complaint before the Bench taking up matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

However, such inaction, even if any, does not furnish a defence for the huge delay in preferring the present appeal. The present appeal has been preferred against an ad interim order, the limitation for preferring which was ninety days from the date of the order.

As such, we do not find any reason being shown by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal.

Thus, IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 is dismissed on contest

without any order as to costs.

3

Consequentially, FMAT 32 of 2025 is dismissed as

time-barred.

Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 stands dismissed as well.

There will be no order as to costs.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Uday Kumar, J.)