Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET GA NO.1562 OF2013WITH CS NO.13 OF2013IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RASHMI BUBNA Versus KARNANI FINANCE ENTERPRISE LTD.& ORS.……… BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 22nd November, 2013.
Mr.S.N.Mitra, senior advocate, Mr.D.K.Jain…appear.
Mr.R.Banerjee, Mr.K.Thakkar, Mr.A.Poddar, Mr.S.Ghosh…appear.
Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, senior advocate, Mr.A.Roy, Ms.V.Bhatia…appear.
The Court : Several valuable properties in Kolkata were owned and controlled by three companies founded by one Mr.Rajendra Kumar Karnani, now dead.
These were Karnani Finance Enterprise & Ors., Nilachal Minerals LTD.and Indrapuri Studios PVT.LTD.& Ors.The valuable properties are at Synagogue Street, Kolkata [one property]., Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata [six properties].and Indrapuri Studio, Tollygunge [one property].After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am quite clear in my mind that ultimately during trial of the suit this Court would have to determine the shareholding in and control of each of these companies and the properties owned and controlled by these companies.
The Court would also have to divide these properties amongst these companies.
They are family companies.
Ultimately, the division would be between family members of Mr.Karnani, entitled to them.
Therefore, at the interim stage inventory of the properties and their preservation should be the paramount consideration of this Court.
Inventory should include the rent fetched by the properties.
Preservation of the properties should mean preventing the properties from further encumbrance being created.
The subject matter of this application is 3, Synagogue Street, Kolkata.
By my order dated 18th November, 2013 I had directed the advocate on record for the plaintiff to file a list of occupiers of the properties, the area of occupation of each occupant.
He was also asked to declare the vacant areas.
The advocate on record for the plaintiff has filed a report showing the occupancy status but he could not indicate the area under occupation of each tenant.
Neither could the vacant area be indicated in the report.
Mr.Mitra, learned senior advocate submitted that this report was incomplete and vague and that a Receiver should be appointed over the property to make a detailed inventory.
He also submitted that the show room area of 6000 sq.
ft.
shown as vacant area in the application of the fiRs.and second defendants [his clients].was not indicated as vacant in the said report.
Mr.Mitra also submitted that there was considerable discrepancy between the occupation status shown in the application of his clients and the report filed by the advocate on record.
Mr.Banerjee submitted that in the instant application made by the fiRs.and second defendants the occupancy status together with areas had been given.
So, there was no necessity of providing the area twice over.
In any case, the occupancy status shown in the application was as on 1st April, 2012.
Mr.Banerjee was also agreeable to a surveyor being appointed for the purpose of ascertainment of the area occupied by a tenant as well as the vacant area.
I accept the submission of Mr.Banerjee.
It is the duty of the court, as I have said before to protect and preserve the property and prevent it from any further encumbrance being created.
The Court should also have an inventory of the property and an accounts of the rents that it is fetching.
There is discrepancy between the statements annexed to the petition by the applicants and the report of the advocate on record.
At the moment the actual area under the occupation of tenants, the area occupied by each tenant, the date of creation of the tenancy, the rent payable by each tenant and the exact vacant area as of today is to be ascertained.
The plaintiff should also be able to explain the discrepancy between the statements in the defendants’ application and the report filed by the advocate on record.
I also think that the surveyor should act under a Special Officer appointed by this Court.
The surveyor will do all the above work subject to cross checking and supervision by the Special Officer.
Order accordingly.
Mr.Kishore Sen, advocate of Bar Association and Mr.Kaushik Chaudhuri, advocate of Bar Library Club are appointed Joint Special Officers at an initial remuneration of 800 GMs.each to be paid by the applicant defendants for cross checking and supervising the above work to be done by the surveyor to be employed by the plaintiff at her cost.
I make it clear that neither the Joint Special Officers nor the surveyor will make any kind of interference with the occupation of the premises or with the collection of rent.
The report of the Joint Special Officers containing a report of the surveyor as an annexure is to be filed by 16th December, 2013.
Copies of the report should be circulated to the parties.
List this application for further consideration on 17th December, 2013.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) pkd.
A.R.[C.R.].