Calcutta High Court
Atanu Lahiri vs Saikat Basu And 12 Others on 29 January, 2021OD 7, 8 & 9
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO.GA/1/2019 (Old No.GA/2359/2019)
In
CS/209/2019
ATANU LAHIRI
VERSUS
SAIKAT BASU AND 12 OTHERS
IA NO.GA/3/2020 (Old No.GA/137/2020)
In
CS/209/2019
ATANU LAHIRI
VERSUS
SAIKAT BASU AND 12 OTHERS
IA NO.GA/2/2020 (Old No.GA/134/2020)
In
CS/209/2019
ATANU LAHIRI
VERSUS
SAIKAT BASU AND 12 OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 29th January, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Appearance:
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. R. Lakhmani, Adv.
Mr. Saptarshi Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Chinmoy Pal, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Krishna Guha, Adv.
The Court: Three applications are taken up for analogous consideration as
they are in the same suit. In one of the interim application in a suit an order
2
dated December 3, 2019 was passed by which Special Officers were appointed for
the purpose of holding election of the society and for operation of the bank
account of the society.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that by an order dated
February 18, 2020, the Appeal Court, appointed a Special Officer to conduct
election. Such Special Officer conducted the election. A new committee took
charge in terms of the election so held. He submits that the Special Officer,
therefore, needs to be discharged. The direction contained in the order dated
December 3, 2019 requiring the Special Officer to operate the bank account
should be vacated and the new committee be permitted to operate the bank
account in the usual course.
The defendant nos.3, 6, 7 and 9 are represented. Learned advocate
appearing for such defendants submits that such defendants are aggrieved by
the report of the Special Officer.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff
requires further interim order in IA No.GA/1/2019.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to permit the parties to file
affidavits in IA No. GA/1/2019.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date; reply, if
any, within a week thereafter. List the application being IA GA No./1/2019 as
‘Adjourned Motion’ four weeks hence.
So far as IA No.GA/2/2020 and IA No.GA/3/2020 are concerned, the
parties agree that those can be disposed of.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to discharge the Special
Officer as the Special Officer completed the task of holding the election. The
3
requirement of the Special Officer operating the bank account in terms of order
dated December 3, 2019 is recalled. New committee is at liberty to operate the
bank account, in accordance with law.
The aforesaid directions, so far as the discharge of the Special Officer and
operation of the bank account are concerned, are without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the contesting defendants.
IA No.GA/2/2020 and IA No.GA/3/2020 are disposed of accordingly.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
B.Pal
Comments