The Calcutta High Court has directed the Receiver handling the estate of late Subodh Gopal Bose to take coordinated steps for restoring property that was allegedly transferred without the court's approval, while making it clear that it would not direct the initiation of criminal proceedings in its testamentary jurisdiction.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay passed the order on June 25, 2026, stressing that the immediate concern of the court was to safeguard the estate and secure restoration of the disputed property rather than decide disputed factual allegations.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose in long-pending probate proceedings concerning the estate of late Subodh Gopal Bose, who died in 1975. According to the applicants, Bose had executed a will under which his movable and immovable properties were equally bequeathed to his four daughters. Probate was granted in 1976, and the administration of the estate has remained under the supervision of the High Court through various executors, administrators and Receivers over the decades.
The applicants alleged that portions of estate land situated in Banjari, Rohtas district of Bihar were transferred through conveyance deeds despite the properties remaining under court-appointed receivership. They sought directions for legal action against persons involved in the alleged transfers and requested permission for criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, one of the respondents, Susmita Sen, stated before the court that she had executed a conveyance under the mistaken belief that the land belonged to her late husband personally. She claimed she was unaware that the property formed part of the estate under the court's supervision and said she had offered to return the entire sale consideration after learning the true position.
Court's Observations
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay noted that the competing versions placed before the court raised disputed questions of fact that could not be conclusively decided at this stage.
The bench observed,
“The paramount consideration before the Court is preservation of the Estate and restoration of its title in the most efficacious manner.”
The court found that, despite their differing explanations, both sides appeared to support cancellation of the disputed conveyance. In such circumstances, the interests of the estate would be better served by taking steps aimed at restoring the property rather than immediately entering into disputed factual findings.
The court also clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the truthfulness of the rival claims.
As the bench observed,
“At this stage, the Court is not inclined to opine upon the veracity of the rival factual assertions.”
Directions Issued by the Court
The High Court directed the present Receiver, Mr. Mainak Ganguly, to convene a meeting of all legatees and legal representatives interested in the estate after giving due notice to all concerned, including Susmita Sen.
The Receiver has been asked to explore whether a consensus can be reached for filing comprehensive civil proceedings seeking cancellation of the conveyance deed and other consequential reliefs for protecting and restoring the estate.
If such a consensus is achieved, appropriate civil proceedings are to be initiated before the competent forum. The court also directed that Susmita Sen should cooperate in those proceedings and be made a party so that all issues connected with the disputed transaction can be decided together.
Additionally, the Receiver was directed to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against Barmeshwar Nath alias Kali, who was alleged to have played a role in the disputed transaction.
Court Declines to Direct Criminal Proceedings
While considering the applicants' request for criminal action, the High Court drew a clear distinction between civil and criminal remedies.
The bench observed,
“This Court in a civil proceeding refrains from issuing any direction upon the Receiver to institute criminal proceedings against any individual or entity.”
It clarified that any party wishing to pursue criminal remedies could do so independently in accordance with law, without any direction from the testamentary court through the Receiver.
Decision
The High Court disposed of GA/28/2026 and directed the Receiver to submit a report within four weeks after holding the meeting of stakeholders.
The matter has been listed on August 31, 2026, for submission of the Receiver's report and further hearing of GA/29/2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Bharati Das v. Sm. Geeta Dutta
Case Number: IA No. GA/28/2026 & IA No. GA/29/2026 in PLA/88/1976
Judge: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Decision Date: June 25, 2026
