Varun Finance Corporation Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Varun Finance Corporation Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 102 days condoned and CAN 2 of 2026 allowed; intra-court appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to approach the same competent court for execution of the order dated 15th February, 2025; observation that it will be open to the Police/State to apprise the said court about the status of the vehicle; CAN 1 of 2025 also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 102 days in filing CAN 2 of 2026 should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay of 102 days in filing CAN 2 of 2026 is bona fide and unintentional, properly explained, and 'sufficient cause' has been shown.

Ratio / Principle

CAN 2 of 2026 is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Key takeaways

The Court is not inclined to entertain the petition/appeal and grants liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to apprise the competent court about non-compliance of its order dated 15th February, 2025 by filing an appropriate application for execution.ratio¶26
It will be open to the Police/State to apprise the competent court about the status of the vehicle (sold in e-auction on 29th April, 2022).obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-court appeal (MAT 2170 of 2025) against the learned Single Judge's order dated 31st July, 2025 disposing of WPA 16540 of 2025. CAN 2 of 2026: delay of 102 days in filing condoned — delay held bona fide and unintentional, properly explained, sufficient cause shown, with no objection from the State. On the appeal: the appellant/writ petitioner had sought mandamus for compliance with the order dated 15th February, 2025 passed in G.R. No.3355 of 2016 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah; counsel for the appellant admitted before the Bench that the court which passed that order is competent and equipped to execute its own order. The Division Bench declined to entertain the petition and disposed of the appeal, granting the appellant liberty to approach the same court for execution of the order dated 15th February, 2025. The State informed the Court that the vehicle in question was sold in e-auction on 29th April, 2022 pursuant to the ACJM, Sealdah's order dated 12th July, 2021, a fact not earlier placed before the Writ Court; the Court observed it will be open to the Police/State to apprise the executing court of the vehicle's status. CAN 1 of 2025 was also disposed of.

Ct.No.1 D/L 17.04.2026 45 Saikat Mukherjee

MAT/2170/2025 WITH CAN/1/2025 WITH CAN/2/2026

VARUN FINANCE CORPORATION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastawa, Adv. Ms. Arunima Hala, Adv. Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv.

…For the Appellant

Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty, Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Gourav Das, Adv.

…For the State

Dictated by Sujoy Paul, CJ.

In Re: CAN 2 of 2026

Parties are represented through their respective

learned counsel.

Affidavit-of-service filed is taken on record.

Report filed by State is taken on record as well.

Heard on CAN 2 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay of 102 days.

The applicant in CAN stated on account of medical contingency in her family she could not come to affirm this petition. Thereafter, there was Puja Vacation. Immediately thereafter, present appeal has been filed. The delay is unintentional and bona fide . Thus, delay may be condoned.

Page 2 of 3

Learned counsel for State did not raise any objection on the condonation of delay.

We have heard the parties on this aspect, in our opinion, the delay is bona fide and unintentional. The delay has been properly explained and in our view, ‘sufficient cause’ has been shown.

Resultantly, CAN 2 of 2026 is allowed and delay is condoned.

CAN 2 of 2026 is, accordingly, disposed of .

In Re: MAT 2170 of 2025

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 31^st July, 2025, whereby WPA 16540 of 2025 was disposed of.

The principal argument of learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner was that the petitioner is seeking mandamus for complying with the order dated 15^th February, 2025, passed in G.R. No.3355 of 2016 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah.

On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for appellant fairly admitted that the court which has passed the said order dated 15^th February, 2025, in G.R. No.3355 of 2016 is competent and equipped with the power to execute its own order.

Page 3 of 3

In view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and deed it proper to grant liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to apprise the competent court about noncompliance of its order by filing appropriate application.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicle in question was sold in e-auction on 29^th April, 2022, pursuant to the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, dated 12^th July, 2021. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court.

Considering the aforesaid, while disposing of this appeal by reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the same court for execution of the order dated 15^th February, 2025, we deem it proper to observe that it will be open to the Police/State to apprise the said court about the status of the vehicle.

With aforesaid, the intra-court appeal is disposed of .

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of .

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)