Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandip Kumar De FMAT 375 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Addarsh Management Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Metropolis Mall Shop Owner’s Welfare Association and Ors. For the appellants : Mr. D. Banerji, Mr. Soham Kumar, Advs. For the respondent no. 1 : Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya, Advs. Heard on : September 10, 2026. Judgment on : September 10, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. When the matter is called on for hearing out of turn upon being mentioned by the appellants on the ground of extreme urgency, Mr. Bose, the learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukherjee, submits that they have instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and seeks a copy of the papers. 2. Accordingly, the learned Advocate for the appellants shall serve copies of the memorandum of the appeal and the connected application on Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, at the earliest. 3. The matter shall be taken for hearing at 4.00 p.m. today. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) Later 4. In view of arguable questions having been raised, we admit the appeal. Since the issues involved are brief in nature, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 5. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the learned Trial Judge refused to grant ad interim injunction, substantially to restrain the defendants/respondents from giving effect to a notice of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) dated August 27, 2026 whereby it was proposed that the general election of the respondent no. 1-association shall be held on September 13, 2026. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit has been filed in representative capacity, which is clear from a pending application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the suit. 2 7. Secondly, it is submitted that by the impugned notice, a proposal has been given to conduct general election of the association for the next year on the scheduled date as well as to keep the number of maximum members at nine for this year, subject to the approval of the AGM, such as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer and four Executive Members. 8. It is submitted that thus, a foregone conclusion has been sought to be approved through the AGM, having already been pre-decided by the governing body. 9. It is further contended that a Returning Officer has also been appointed by the said agenda, which could only have been done in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) itself. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that serious allegations have been levelled by the members of the two concerned associations against the present governing body, which led to a General Body Meeting being held on July 20, 2026, where a no-confidence motion was moved and a resolution taken against the current governing body, who are proposing to hold the AGM through the impugned notice. 11. It is submitted that the learned Trial Judge erroneously clubbed all the remedies while refusing to grant ad interim injunction without any proper reason, thereby failing to adjudicate on the different facets of the challenge thrown to the notice by the plaintiffs/appellants. 3 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1- association contends that no pre-decision has been taken by the impugned notice. It is categorically made clear in the said notice itself that the proposal to keep the maximum number of members at nine is subject to the approval in the AGM. 13. It is contended that as per the Bye-laws of the respondent no.1- association, which have been relied on by the appellants as well, the agenda of an AGM may very well include the conduct of general election of the society for the next year, which has precisely been indicated in the impugned notice. 14. It is contended that in order to hold the election in the AGM itself, a Returning Officer had to be appointed earlier as well as an electoral roll had to be published prior to the election and not during the AGM itself. 15. Learned senior counsel also advances arguments on the legality of the so-called “extraordinary” meeting dated July 20, 2026, and also seeks to insinuate that one of the associations which was allegedly represented in the said meeting is not a valid body. 16. However, we are loath to enter into the merits of the contentions which are the subject matter of the suit itself at this premature juncture. 17. Since the ad interim prayer, which has been refused by the learned Trial Judge, is restricted to the notice dated August 27, 2026, we scrutinize the same in order to come to our conclusions. 4 18. The offending clause as per the appellants is Item no. 5 of the agenda of the proposed AGM to be held on September 13, 2026. 19. However, contrary to the submission of the appellants, we do not find any premeditated decision having already been taken or any foregone conclusion worth the name in the said item. 20. What has only been proposed in item no. 5 is to conduct the general election of the association, in terms of Bye-law 9B(g) of the association, which permits the AGM to include an agenda to conduct such a general election. 21. It has further been proposed that the maximum number of governing body members would be nine, which, in any event, is merely in the form of a proposal and, even as per the said agenda, is subject to the approval in the AGM. Such proposal, even as per the impugned notice, is intended to be subject to the decision of the AGM and, hence, cannot qualify as a foregone conclusion. 22. Insofar as the nomination of a Returning Officer is concerned, it has been clearly elucidated in item no. 5 of the agenda that a letter requesting the Registrar of Societies to nominate someone from their office to conduct the election was already sent, but even after seven days no response in that regard was received from the Registrar, compelling the current governing body to appoint one learned Advocate as the Returning Officer. 23. The contention of the respondent no. 1 is justified to the effect that unless a Returning Officer is nominated prior to the AGM and an 5 electoral roll is prepared and other preliminary measures are taken as a build-up to the election, the election cannot be held in the Annual General Meeting itself. 24. We find substance in such contention, since if the Returning Officer himself/herself is appointed in the Annual General Meeting itself and decisions are taken to prepare electoral rolls in the said meeting, it would frustrate the very purpose enumerated Bye-law No. 9B(g), which is to conduct the general election of the society for the next year in the Annual General Meeting itself. 25. Insofar as the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties against each other on merits are concerned, we do not enter into the same at this stage, since it might have the effect of prejudicing the outcome of the injunction application. 26. Be that as it may, whatever allegations might be levelled against the present governing body members by the appellants can very well be thrashed out in the suit and the injunction application and cannot be a relevant factor in ascertaining the prima facie validity of the impugned notice. 27. Moreover, the appellants’ arguments regarding there being irregularities in the preparation of the electoral rolls can very well be canvassed by the appellants before the Trial Court during the hearing of the injunction application or the suit but cannot be a consideration for the purpose of deciding the validity and legality of the notice itself, 6 particularly since such allegations are not part of the grounds of challenge in the suit, at least as yet. 28. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal. 29. Hence, FMAT 375 of 2026 is dismissed, thereby affirming the impugned order bearing Order no. 2 dated September 9, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 2071 of 2026. 30. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of as well. 31. We make it abundantly clear that the aforesaid findings are tentative in nature, arrived at only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal from an ad-interim refusal of injunction, and shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Judge while deciding the injunction application and/or the suit on their own merits. 32. There will be no order as to costs. 33. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) ADSL-1 Ct No.16 (SSS) 7