D & I Taxcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Radhika Singh (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed RVW No. 141 of 2026, thereby upholding its judgment and decrees dated December 9, 2025 in FA No. 310 of 2014 and FA No. 311 of 2014, by which the Trial Court’s dismissal of an eviction suit was reversed and an eviction decree was granted against the review applicant as a licensee. The review applicant contended that the Trial Court had repeatedly directed the plaintiffs to notify the defendant of the peremptory hearing date, but the direction was not complied with. It was argued that the suit was thereafter heard ex parte, depriving the applicant of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The High Court held that there was no statutory mandate requiring such notice and that the alleged non-compliance did not vitiate the suit. The Court further noted that the Trial Court had ultimately dismissed the suit, meaning the defendant had no right of appeal against that decision and could not raise the objection at the review stage after not having raised it in the first appeal.
The review applicant also relied on observations in proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT, contending that the liquidator had admitted that the applicant was a tenant and that the observations regarding payment of rent established tenancy. The High Court, after examining the relevant observations, found that the admissions referred to by the Tribunals were admissions of the review applicant itself and not of the liquidator. The NCLT order dated June 25, 2019 recorded that the applicant was “admittedly a tenant” in the context of a letter submitted by the applicant. Similarly, the NCLAT judgment dated March 3, 2020 repeatedly referred to the applicant’s “admitted” status as a tenant. The High Court held that these observations were made in the context of the applicant’s own claim and were construed against its assertion that it was an operational creditor.
