Disposed¶5

United Exhibitors Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ifci Ltd. and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Apr 2026MAT/1956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAT appeal disposed; writ appeal after cancellation of e-auction and refund of earnest money; no writ relief, remedy by suit for damages; Salt Lake leasehold property sale requires Urban Development Department permission and fresh State of West Bengal approval per rules/policy; order impugned dated February 21, 2024 in WPA 28520 of 2023 found not perverse; United Exhibitors Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. IFCI Ltd.; CAN 2 of 2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; connected application CAN 2 of 2025 likewise disposed of. No writ relief beyond the Single Judge's order: appellants may seek damages by suit; any future transfer by respondent nos. 1 and 2 requires compliance with Government rules/policy and fresh permission from the State of West Bengal; parties to act on the server copy of the order. ¶5

United Exhibitors Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ifci Ltd. and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether any order could be passed by the writ court once the tender/auction process had been cancelled and the earnest money refunded. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

The Division Bench did not find the order impugned to be perverse; the Single Judge's approach that no writ order was possible after cancellation of the tender and refund of the earnest money stands.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

If the appellants suffered loss or injury on account of the cancellation, their remedy is to file a suit for damages.

¶4

Key takeaways

Should respondent nos. 1 and 2 wish to transfer the immovable property, the provisions of the rules/policy of the Government must be complied with and necessary permission must be obtained from the State of West Bengal afresh before undertaking any activity in that regard.ratio¶4
No sale of the Salt Lake leasehold properties can be effected without compliance with the applicable rules and policy; permission of the department is mandatory.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Two-member Bench disposing of MAT/1956/2025 against a learned Single Judge's order dated February 21, 2024 in WPA 28520 of 2023, which had declined to pass orders as the e-auction tender stood cancelled and the earnest money refunded following an objection by the State of West Bengal to the proposed sale of a leasehold plot without departmental permission. Affirming there was no perversity, the Bench held that the appellants' remedy for any loss is a suit for damages, and directed that any transfer of the property by respondent nos. 1 and 2 comply with Government rules/policy with fresh permission from the State of West Bengal; permission of the department was stated to be mandatory. Connected application CAN 2 of 2025 also disposed of.

¶1

06.04.2026 M/L No.06 Court No.12 (cp)

¶2

MAT/1956/2025 IA NO: CAN/2/2025

¶3

UNITED EXHIBITORS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS.

¶4

IFCI LTD. & ORS.

¶5

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Soumavo Mukherjee Mr. Subhajit Seth

¶6

…..for the appellants. Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra Ms. Priyamvada Singh …..for the State respondents. Mr. Dipankar Das ….for the respondent nos. 1&2.

¶7

The appeal arises out of an order dated February 21, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 28520 of 2023. By the order impugned, the learned Judge held that as the tender process had been cancelled and the earnest money had been refunded, no order could be passed by the writ court. However, His Lordship allowed the appellants to approach the respondent authorities if they are interested to purchase the property, in accordance with law.

¶8

It appears that the concerned plot had been allotted in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 on leasehold basis. The

¶9

¶10

respondent nos. 1 and 2 sought to sell the immovable property on ‘as is where is and whatever basis’, through e-auction. The appellants were the successful auction purchasers and had deposited the earnest money. However, the amount was refunded when the State of West Bengal raised an objection with regard to the proposed sale, without any permission from the competent department. Under such circumstances, the entire auction process was recalled and/or revoked and/or cancelled by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the money was refunded to the appellants.

¶11

In respect of Salt Lake properties, leasehold rights had been created in favour of allottees by the Urban Development Department. Subsequently, the department had come up with a policy, permitting the sale of the Sale Lake properties upon compliances of certain formalities and also on the basis of the terms and conditions of the original lease. However, no sale could be effected without compliance of the rules and the policy. Permission of the department is mandatory.

¶12

We do not find that the order impugned to be perverse. If the appellants have suffered any loss or injury on account of the cancellation, the remedy of the appellants will be to file a suit for damages. If the respondent nos. 1 and 2 wish to transfer the immovable property, then the provisions of the rules/policy of the

¶13

¶14

Government have to be complied with and necessary permission should be obtained from the State of West Bengal afresh, before undertaking any activity in this regard.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The connected application being CAN 2 of 2025 is also disposed of.

¶16

Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

¶17

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶18

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

United Exhibitors Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ifci Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Exhibitors Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ifci Ltd. and Ors.

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

Ramanand Yadav and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arun Biswas and Anr. Vs Purnima Saha and Ors.

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. Vs Biswanath Kantha and Ors.

Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Chief Regional Manager,Hpcl & Anr. Vs Nilima Paul & Ors.

The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Vs Nilima Paul & Ors.