Calcutta High Court
APOT/65/2025 of MANMOHAN HOSIERY Vs CESC LIMITED AND ORS on 21 April 2026
SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APOT/65/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 MANMOHAN HOSIERY VS CESC LIMITED AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 21st April, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Partha Chakraborty,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
OD 1 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/65/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 MANMOHAN HOSIERY VS CESC LIMITED AND ORS
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR The Hon’ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 21st April, 2026.
Appearance: Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta, Adv. …for the appellant Mr. Brotindra Mullick, Adv. Ms. Poulomi Paul Maity, Adv. Mr. Supriti Dutta Mukherjee, Adv. ...for CESC Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. Mr. A.P. Agarwalla, Adv. …for respondent no. 4
The Court: The appellant is a proposed consumer. The writ petition was filed seeking supply of new connection. Her Lordship conducted an exercise to ascertain whether the appellant was at least in possession or occupation of the said premises and directed that CESC may cause an inspection and file a report. Such report was filed, which categorically mentioned that a 400 sq. ft. room on the ground floor of a three storied building was found dilapidated. There was no entrance door. The premises was vacant. There were no electrical wirings. In fact, there
2 was no semblance of occupation. Learned Writ Court rightly held that the Court was not convinced regarding the possession of the subject premises, in view of the inspection report. It is true that a person in settled possession of any premises is entitled to electricity even if such possession is unauthorized. Although there is a civil suit pending, that itself will not indicate that the appellant is in settled possession of the concerned room in view of the report filed by CESC. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any order at this stage. However, there is a civil suit pending. The appellant can approach the civil court. With the above observation, the appeal and the application are disposed of. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) TR/