Disposed¶27

Chandra Bhussan Chaudhary and Anr. v. Atanu Bera and Anr.

Calcutta HC13 Jul 2026FMAT (ARBAWARD)/57/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FMAT (ARBAWARD) 57 of 2025; CAN 1 of 2025; High Court at Calcutta; Debangsu Basak; Md. Shabbar Rashidi; Section 9 Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996; Section 17; Section 2(1)(c)(vii) Commercial Courts Act 2015; interim injunction; nullity; District Judge Howrah; Misc. Case No.258 of 2025; Order No.02 September 24, 2025; development agreement; commercial dispute; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

FMAT (ARBAWARD) 57 of 2025 and IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without any order as to costs; parties left at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act of 1996, with an express stipulation that none of the Court's observations will prejudice either side. ¶27

Chandra Bhussan Chaudhary and Anr. Vs Atanu Bera and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim injunction order (Order No.02 dated September 24, 2025, Misc. Case No.258 of 2025) passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah — a Court which is not the Commercial Court constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — is valid, given that the Section 9 dispute is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of that Act. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the subject-matter of the Section 9 petition is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the impugned order was passed by a Court which is not the Commercial Court constituted under the Act of 2015, the order passed is a nullity.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act of 1996.

¶25

Key takeaways

None of the observations made by this Court for or in relation to the impugned order will prejudice any of the parties in any manner whatsoever.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Bench of Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ., disposed of FMAT (ARBAWARD) 57 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 on 13.07.2026. The appeal challenged Order No.02 dated September 24, 2025 of the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Case No.258 of 2025 — an interim injunction ordered under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 restraining the appellants from alienating, transferring or damaging property held under an agreement of development. Holding the dispute to be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and noting that the impugned order issued from a Court which was not the Commercial Court constituted under that Act, the Division Bench pronounced the order a nullity. The parties were left free to seek interim relief from the appointed Arbitrator under Section 17 of the 1996 Act; the Court recorded that none of its observations would prejudice either party; disposal was without costs.

¶1

DL-24

¶2

13.07.2026

¶3

Court No.37 [Bench ID- 266046 ] (AD)

¶4

(Disposed of)

¶5

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶6

Appellate Side

¶7

FMAT (ARBAWARD) 57 of 2025 with IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025

¶8

Sri Chandra Bhussan Chaudhary & Anr. Vs.

¶9

Sri Atanu Bera & Anr.

¶10

Mr. Ranjan Kali, Advocate

¶11

Mr. Rabindra Mitra, Advocate

¶12

Mr. Sobhan Kumar Pathak, Advocate

¶13

… for the Appellants

¶14

Mr. Souri Ghosal, Advocate

¶15

… for the Respondents

¶16

Appeal is directed against Order No.02 dated September 24, 2025 passed in Misc. Case No.258 of 2025 by the learned District Judge, Howrah.

¶17

By the impugned order, learned Trial Judge passed an interim order of injunction restraining the appellants from creating any third party interest in respect of the property under agreement by way of alienation or transfer and/or causing any wastage and damage to the suit property.

¶18

Parties before us informed the Court that, the parties agreed to refer the disputes between them to arbitration.

¶19

Learned Arbitrator, so appointed, entered into reference.

¶20

¶21

Subject-matter of the disputes is an agreement of development in respect of an immovable property.

¶22

The subject-matter of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is, therefore, a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶23