M/S. Uttorayan Residencyapartment Owners Association Vs Smt. Sanjana Sarkar and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Uttorayan Residencyapartment Owners Association Vs Smt. Sanjana Sarkar and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of without any order as to costs; Claim Case No.10 of 2021 remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration with all points kept open; appellant permitted to file written objections within a fortnight; deposited compensation to be placed in fixed deposit and, with accrued interest, to abide by the result of the claim case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation had jurisdiction to enter upon and decide the claim, i.e., to pass the impugned award, in the facts and circumstances of the case. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since there is an issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the impugned award, and given respondent no.1's stand that relevant documents could not be produced because the appellant did not contest below, the Court deemed it appropriate to remand Claim Case No.10 of 2021 for fresh consideration; this direction was passed at the invitation of respondent no.1.

Key takeaways

All points raised by the parties are kept open.ratio¶24
The appellant is at liberty to file written objection to the claim petition within a fortnight from date.ratio¶25
The Commissioner is at liberty to proceed with the claim case in accordance with law a fortnight hence.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMAT 15 of 2023 (High Court at Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench): Appeal by an Apartment Owners Association against an order of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation made under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 awarding compensation to respondent no.1. The appellant challenged the quantification of compensation and, principally, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. Since the question of the Commissioner's jurisdiction remained unresolved and, per respondent no.1, documents evidencing the scope and nature of work entrusted by the appellant could not be produced because the appellant had not contested the proceedings below, the Division Bench (at the invitation of respondent no.1) remanded Claim Case No.10 of 2021 for fresh consideration, keeping all points open. The appellant may file written objections within a fortnight; the Commissioner may proceed in accordance with law a fortnight hence and is requested to dispose of the claim expeditiously. The compensation amount already deposited with the Commissioner is to be kept in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank and, with accrued interest, will abide by the result of the claim case. Appeal disposed of without order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.; Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J. concurring.) Judgment dated January 13, 2026.

1 FMAT 15 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

FMAT 15 of 2023

M/S. Uttorayan Residency Apartment Owners Association Vs.

Smt. Sanjana Sarkar & Anr.

For the appellant : Mr. Milindo Paul, Advocate

Mr. Nabankur Paul, Advocate

Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Advocate

Ms. Bedasruti Bose, Advocate

Mr. Subham Das, Advocate

Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh, Advocate

For the Respondent no.1: Mr. Arnab Sengupta, Advocate (through VC)

Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, Advocate Ms. Madhulika Sharma, Advocate Ms. Khushi Kundu, Advocate Mr. Bijan Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Radhika Agarwal, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on : January 13, 2026

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

Appeal is at the behest of an Apartment Owners Association.

2 FMAT 15 of 2023

Appeal is directed against an order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

Apart from the grounds of merits particularly with regard to the quantification of the compensation awarded, the appellant canvasses the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to enter into the arena, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that, since the appellant did not contest the proceedings before the Commissioner, relevant documents with regard to the scope and nature of the work that the respondent no.1 was entrusted by the appellant, on the aspect of jurisdiction of the Commission, could not be produced.

In such view, since there is an issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the impugned award and particularly in view of the stand taken by the respondent no.1 in this appeal, as noted above, we deem it appropriate to remand Claim Case No.10 of 2021 for fresh consideration.

All points raised by the parties are kept open.

Appellant is at liberty to file written objection to the claim petition within a fortnight from date.

Commissioner is at liberty to proceed with the claim case in accordance with the law a fortnight hence.

Commissioner is requested to hear and dispose of the claim case as expeditiously as possible.

3

FMAT 15 of 2023

This direction is passed at the invitation of the respondent no.1 before us.

We are informed that the appellant deposited the amount of compensation with the Commissioner.

The amount, so deposited, will remain to the credit of the claim case. The Commissioner will invest the same in a fixed deposit account with any nationalized bank of the choice of the Commissioner and renew the same from time to time, if not already done. The amount, so deposited, along with accrued interest will abide by the result of the claim case.

FMAT 15 of 2023 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to

costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

I agree.

(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)

(AD)