Dismissed¶16

R.S.P. Green Development and Laboratories Private Limited v. Arindam Basu and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Mar 2026MAT/445/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time to remove articles from premises sealed by Howrah Municipal Corporation for unauthorized user; appeal from contempt-proceeding order (CPAN 1765 of 2023 arising out of WPA 8817 of 2023 with WPA 12703 of 2023); Division Bench not appellate court over contempt orders; remedy before learned Single Judge seized of contempt application; subsequent order dated March 19, 2026 fixing 28th-29th March 2026 for removal; MAT 445 of 2026 dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench finds no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge, who had been indulgent and kind in allowing the appellant to remove articles from premises sealed upon satisfaction that the user had been illegally converted. ¶14

R.S.P. Green Development and Laboratories Private Limited Vs Arindam Basu and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the time fixed by the learned Single Judge (within 48 hours) for the appellant to remove the articles from the sealed premises should be extended. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

This Bench is not the appellate court from orders passed in a contempt proceeding; therefore the appeal seeking modification of the timeframe cannot be entertained by it.

¶14

Key takeaways

If the appellant is unable to complete the process of removal within the timeframe fixed, its remedy would be before the learned Single Judge who is in seisin of the contempt application.ratio¶14
The premises were sealed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation upon its being satisfied that the user of the premises had been illegally converted, which the Bench took into account in upholding the Single Judge's approach.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT 445 of 2026 (with CAN 1 of 2026) — R.S.P. Green Development and Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Arindam Basu & Ors.; Howrah Municipal Corporation represented. Appeal against order dated 26th February, 2026 of the learned Single Judge in CPAN 1765 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2026), arising out of WPA 8817 of 2023 with WPA 12703 of 2023, passed in a contempt proceeding, granting the appellant liberty to remove all articles within 48 hours from premises sealed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation on detection of unauthorized (illegally converted) user, with the Corporation to open the lock in the presence of police and parties. The appellant prayed only for extension of time for removal; meanwhile the Single Judge, by order dated March 19, 2026, fixed 28th–29th March, 2026 for removal with HMC men and agents to remain present from 12.00 noon to 5.00 p.m. Held: (i) no illegality in the Single Judge's order, which was indulgent; (ii) the Division Bench is not the appellate court from orders passed in a contempt proceeding; (iii) if unable to complete removal, the appellant's remedy lies before the Single Judge in seisin of the contempt application. Appeal and connected application dismissed; no order as to costs; parties to act on server copy.

¶1

23.03.2026 SL No.20 Court No.12 (gc)

¶2

MAT 445 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026

¶3

R.S.P. Green Development and Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

Vs. Arindam Basu & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Souvik Das, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy

¶6

…..for the Appellant. Mr. Arindam Basu, Mr. Sourav Modak

¶7

…Respondents-in-person. Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, Mr. Ankit Sureka

¶8

…for the H.M.C.

¶9

The defect in the appeal has been rectified. Additional court-fees have been paid.

¶10

The appeal has been filed from an order dated 26^th February, 2026 passed in CPAN 1765 of 2023 (CAN 1 of 2026) arising out of WPA 8817 of 2023 with WPA 12703 of 2023. The appellant seeks extension of time to remove the articles from the premises which has been sealed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, upon detecting unauthorized user of the premises in question. The appellant was granted liberty by the learned Single Judge, to remove all the articles within 48 hours. The Corporation was directed to open the

¶11

¶12

lock and allow removal of the articles in the presence of the police and the parties to the proceeding.

¶13

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the time fixed by Her Lordship may be extended. The appellants will not be in a position to remove the articles within the timeframe fixed by Her Lordship.

¶14

We do not find any illegality in the order of Her Lordship. Rather, Her Lordship has been indulgent and kind to the appellant, by allowing the appellant to remove the articles from the premises which have been sealed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, upon being satisfied that the user of the premises had been illegally converted. We find that, after the order impugned was passed, by another order dated March 19, 2026, Her Lordship fixed 28^th March, 2026 and 29^th March, 2026 for removal of the articles from the sealed flat. The men and agents of the Howrah Municipal Corporation were directed to remain present at the spot on the aforesaid dates from 12.00 noon to 5.00 p.m. The order impugned has been passed in a contempt proceeding. We are not the appellate court from orders passed in a contempt proceeding. Secondly, if the appellant is unable to complete the process of removal, its remedy would be before Her Lordship who is in seisin of the contempt application.

¶15

¶16