Calcutta High Court
Cab Engineers Private Limited vs The State Fisheries Development ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
OCD-19
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/86/2025
CAB ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
THE STATE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : December 4, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Supratim Laha, Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Sen, Adv.
... for the plaintiff/petitioner
Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
...for the defendant/respondent
The Court:- This is an application praying for injunction filed by
the plaintiff.
The case of the plaintiff/petitioner is that by virtue of a work order
issued by the defendant, the plaintiff was engaged for carrying out various
civil works at an identified site. The contract was executed in writing and
is available with all its terms and conditions in the tender document being
Annexure-CC at page 80 to the affidavit in opposition. The petitioner
2
states that initially, time was the essence of the contract but
subsequently, twice the same was extended. The first of such extension
was till March 31, 2025 and the second extension was till May 31, 2025
as would be evident from the letters dated February 21, 2025 at page 25
to the petition and May 29, 2025 at page 28 to the petition.
The averments made in the petition, affidavit in opposition and
the affidavit in reply filed therein would show that the petitioner has raised
disputes that due to alleged failure on the part of the respondent to hand
over the site in time and/or to make the site in a workable condition by
the respondent, the petitioner could not commence its work in the due
time and accordingly, the work could not be completed within the
stipulated period originally agreed and accepting such fact situation, the
respondent has extended the time stipulation.
The prayers from the plaint are quoted below:-
"In the circumstances, the Plaintiff prays Leave
under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and under
Clause 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for instituting
the present suit and claims:
(a) Specific performance of the Work Order dated
31 July 2023 and the Agreement dated 04th December,
2023;
(b) Declaration that the Plaintiff has not committed
any breach of Work Order dated 31 July, 2023 and the
Agreement dated 04th December, 2023;
(c) Declaration declaring that the imposition of
liquidated damages in terms of Clause 2 of the Agreement
dated 4th December 2023 is wrongful and illegal and declare
the same to be bad in law;
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/86/2025
A.R, J.
3
(d) Mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to perform their part of the obligations in terms of the Work Order dated 31st July, 2023 and the Agreement dated 04th December, 2023;
(e) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, and their men and agents from awarding the balance work of the said Project, during the subsistence of the Work Order dated 31st July, 2023 and the Agreement dated 04th December, 2023 to any third party contractor and/or agency;
(f) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant and their men and agents from taking any step or further step and from giving any effect and/or further effect to the purported communication dated 19th May 2025;
(g) Claim for damages of Rs. 27,00,000/- in addition to the claim for injunction under Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act;
(h) Receiver;
(i) Injunction;
(j) Attachment;
(k) Costs;
(l) Such further or other reliefs."
In aid of the above reliefs claimed in the plaint the instant interlocutory injunction has been filed after receiving the impugned letter dated May 19, 2025 Annexure 'I' at page 28 to the petition.
Upon the injunction application being moved, an order of injunction was passed by the coordinate Bench on June 26, 2025 to the extent that the defendant was restrained from imposing any penalty upon the plaintiff in terms of the letter dated May 19, 2025. The order of IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 In CS-COM/86/2025 A.R, J.
4injunction was for a limited period. The same was extended from time to time. The last of such extension was on September 23, 2025 till November 14, 2025 and since then the interim order has expired and at present there is no interim order.
The allegations and counter allegations of the parties with regard to make the site workable or not or to hand it over in time or the breach alleged by the respondent against the plaintiff that the work was not done within the time stipulated are to be decided at the time of trial of the suit and not at this interlocutory stage. Inasmuch as, the plaintiff has claimed damages in prayer (g) to the plaint, which according to the plaintiff had crystallized as on the date of filing of the suit on June 21, 2025.
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the defendant, on specific instruction from her client, submits that the defendant has not yet terminated the contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is still there at the relevant sight under the contract. However, the plaintiff has not been carrying out any work, though being at site. The subject project awarded to the defendant under a project of NABARD. In the event, time bound completion of the project is not done, the defendant will have to face civil and evil consequences. The consequences likely to be faced by the defendant would appear from Annexure 'mm' at page 120 to the affidavit in opposition. Accordingly, she has opposed the prayer for injunction.
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 In CS-COM/86/2025 A.R, J.
5In reply, Mr. Mainak Bose, learned senior Advocate submits that the respondent in terms of the said impugned letter dated May 19, 2025 cannot and should not impose any penalty or give any effect to any penalty clause in any manner.
After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, there is nothing before this Court to show that the penalty clause has been effected or imposed till the date of filing of the injunction application upon the plaintiff by the respondent or even thereafter. There is nothing to suggest on record that any amount has been deducted from the bills raised by the plaintiff or the respondent is in the process of deduction from the bill of the plaintiff by way of penalty or otherwise.
After extension of time by the respondent, whether the respondent can claim time will be the essence of the contract, shall also be decided at the time of trial of the suit, as the same involves mixed questions of law and facts.
In view of the overall narrative, as narrated above and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered and firm view that there is no prima facie case warranting reimposition or continuation of the interim order, which has already expired. The balance of convenience and/or inconvenience also does not IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 In CS-COM/86/2025 A.R, J.
6warrant reimposition of the interim order. In any event, the petitioner has also claimed damages in the plaint.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties or on the underlying rights of the parties to the suit.
All points are kept open to the parties to urge at the time of trial of the suit.
With the above observations, this application IA No. GA- COM/1/2025 stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.) RS/mg IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 In CS-COM/86/2025 A.R, J.