Calcutta High Court

FMA/975/2026 of ASSOCIATED STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHER Vs KB SYNDICATE AND OTHERS on 23 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No.16 23.09.2026 TN FMA 975 of 2026 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 Associated Steel and Engineering Works and another Vs. KB Syndicate and others Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, Mr. Prasenjit Debnath, Mr. A . Sengupta ....for the appellants Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Mr. Sounak Mondal

AD-15

Ct No.16

23.09.2026

TN

FMA 975 of 2026

IA No: CAN 1 of 2026

Associated Steel and Engineering Works and another

Vs.

KB Syndicate and others

Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee,

Mr. Prasenjit Debnath,

Mr. A. Sengupta

....for the appellants

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya,

Mr. Anirban Saha Roy,

Mr. Sounak Mondal

…..for the respondents

[

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of a prayer for injunction in respect of a proceeding initiated under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellants.

2. However, although under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code, the final adjudication under Rules 98 or 100 of Order XXI has the same force and is subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise “as if it were a decree”, nonetheless, a proceeding under the said provisions does not acquire the character of a suit per se.

3. Order XLIII of the Code provides for an appeal in respect of orders passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which, in turn, relate to orders passed in a “suit”.

2

4. Hence, the order impugned in the present appeal is not an appealable one within the purview of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Accordingly, FMA 975 of 2026 is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the appellants to prefer an appropriate challenge against the impugned order on the self-same grounds as taken in the present appeal.

6. CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.

7. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon furnishing a photocopy thereof for the records.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Sandip Kumar De, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead