Bharat Overseas Private Limited and Another vs Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited — AO-COM/24/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0224672026
Next Hearing
21st May 2026
e-Filing Number
18-05-2026
Filing Number
AO-COM/24/2026
Filing Date
18-05-2026
Registration No
AO-COM/24/2026
Registration Date
19-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Arbitration ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bharat Overseas Private Limited and Another
Adv. SAPTARSHI DATTA
Respondent(s)
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK , HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
FOR ADMISSION
MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 22-05-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
The High Court at Calcutta set aside an ex parte interim injunction order granted by the Commercial Court on March 24, 2026, finding it violated procedural requirements under Order 39 of the CPC and exhibited improper conduct. The respondent had failed to serve the application on appellants despite a February 19 order directing service, yet obtained an injunction order without the appellants' knowledge—demonstrating a "closure of mind" without permitting their response. The court remitted the matter for fresh hearing on June 11, 2026, with appellants to file their affidavit-in-opposition within seven days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta set aside an ex parte interim injunction order granted by the Commercial Court on March 24, 2026, finding it violated procedural requirements under Order 39 of the CPC and exhibited improper conduct. The respondent had failed to serve the application on appellants despite a February 19 order directing service, yet obtained an injunction order without the appellants' knowledge—demonstrating a "closure of mind" without permitting their response. The court remitted the matter for fresh hearing on June 11, 2026, with appellants to file their affidavit-in-opposition within seven days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts