Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr vs Incab Industries Limited & Ors on 25 February, 2021
25.02.2021
3 to 5
PG Ct.04
WPA 14251 of 2018
IA No.CAN/1/2020 (Old No.CAN 2502 of 2020)
Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
INCAB Industries Limited & Ors.
With
WPA 14253 of 2018
Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
With
WPA 15541 of 2018
The Indian Cable Workers' Union & Ors.
Versus
INCAB Industries Limited & Ors.
Mr. Debasish Kundu, sr. adv.
Mr. Aryak Dutt
Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai
Mr. Sugata Banerjee
.... For petitioners
Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty
Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee
.... For Union of India
Mr. Rudreshwar Singh
...For respondent nos. 5 & 6
in WPA 14251 of 2018
Mr. Diwakar R Singh
... For INCAB Industries
Mr. A.K. Shrivastava
Mr. Akash Sharma
... For applicant in CAN/1/2020
Mr. Indranil Nandi
Mr. Sayak Konar .... For petitioners in
WPA 14253 of 2018
WPA 15541 of 2018
Ms. Aparajita Rao
Mr. V. Raja Rao
Ms. Pallavi Gandhi
.... For respondent no.19
Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent nos. 5 and 6 and makes his submissions on
law. He first relies on judgment of Supreme Court in ICICI
Bank Limited Vs. APS Star Industries Limited reported
in (2010) 10 SCC 1 (cited by Mr. Srivastava, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of intervening workmen). He
points out from paragraph 2, the question up for decision
was whether inter se transfer of Non Performing Assets
(NPA) by banks is illegal under Banking Regulation Act,
1949. He places paragraphs 12, 36 to 39, 43 and 44.
He next submits on his contention that the writ
petitions are not maintainable. This is because remedy
under article 226 in the Constitution is pre-eminently a
public law remedy. There is no public law element in the
transaction of assignment of 'account receivables' by the
subsequent assignee, to his clients. He relies on Binny
Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. reported in (2005) 6
SCC 657 paragraphs 11, 19, 22 and 29.
He cites Mohan Pandey Vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria
reported in (1992) 4 SCC 61 paragraph 6 to submit, by
the writ petitions, disputes relating to property rights have
been raised. He also relies on K.K. Saksena Vs.
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
reported in (2015) 4 SC 670, inter alia, paragraph 45
wherein Supreme Court declared the law on discharge of
public duty/positive obligation of public nature or liability
to discharge any function under any statute as necessary
ingredient for maintaining a writ petition. He submits, said
Court earlier in ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra) had already held
that the assignment does not fall foul of Banking
Regulation Act, 1949.
Lastly he relies on Calcutta Gas Company
(Prop.) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR
1962 SC 1044, paragraph 5 for his similar argument that
writ petitioners do not have locus standi and therefore
cannot be allowed to maintain the writ petitions.
One other thing he points out from order dated
11th September, 2017 of Supreme Court made in litigation
between the parties, direction was for agitating grievance,
if any, under the Code i.e. the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016. As such, therefore, the writ petitions are also
not maintainable on there being available efficacious
alternative remedy.
He concludes his submissions.
List on 4th March, 2021 for firstly, Mr.
Srivastava being heard.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
