Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 376 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 8 February, 2022
OD 3
WPO 764 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
ALPHA STITCH-ART PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
VERSUS
THE WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
Date : 8th February, 2022.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. K.R.Thaker,Adv.
Mr. Rathunath Ghose,Adv.
Ms. Pritha Ghose,Adv.
Mr. Joydip Kar,Sr. Adv.
The Court:- Leave is granted to the petitioner to amend the name
of the respondent no. 7 as Company Secretary and SPIO instead of the
Chairman and SPIO. Let the amendment be carried out by advocate on
record for the petitioner in course of the day. The Registry shall make
appropriate changes in their records. Service afresh of the writ petition is
dispensed with since the amendment is extremely formal in nature.
The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether
the amalgamation that occurred between the original lessee one M/s.
Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and four other companies into the writ
petitioner, would be binding on the WBSIDCL, the original lessor. The
brief facts of the case are that by an order dated 5 th March, 2020 passed
in CP (CAA) No. 2120/KB/2019 , CA (CAA) No. 1111/KB/2019 (In the
matter of Alpha Stitch Pvt. Ltd.), the NCLT, Kolkata had allowed
amalgamation of the original lessor, one M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
and four other companies into the writ petitioner .
Since after the amalgamation the original lessor, M/s. Sona
Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and four other companies ceased to exist. The
petitioner then applied for change of the name of the lessee from M/s.
Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to Alpha Stitch-Art Private Limited. The
petitioner relied upon a communication of the West Bengal Small
Industries Development Corporation Ltd. addressed to the petitioner
dated 29th July, 2021 stating that merger in amalgamation of a lessee
within its group company would not amount to a change in control of the
lessee and hence does not attract fees or require prior consent of the
lessor. The WBSIDCL did not accept the same and demanded fees and
levies.
Mr. Jaydip Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the WBIDCL
submits that the communication dated 29 th July 2021 has been
misinterpreted by the petitioner and/or issued under a mistake of fact
and law. Reference in this regard is made to a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. vs.
M.A. Khader reported in (1986) 2 SC 656 by Mr. Kar.
Based on the judgment and the terms of the original lease, inter
alia, clauses 2J and K it is argued that such amalgamation would
normally be construed as subletting thereby avoiding the lease. The
petitioner was liable to be evicted. In lieu of eviction, however, WBSIDCL
has decided to impose levies and fees. It is also argued that the
communication dated 29th July, 2021 cannot bind the WBSIDCL in inter
alia that the communication is without authority and contrary to the
rules of the WBSIDCL. There is no estoppel against the law.
This Court is of the view that the matter is required to be dealt
with after receiving affidavits, since prima facie the stand taken by the
respondent no. 1 does not appear to be arbitrary.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within a
period of four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within a period of
one week thereafter.
Liberty to mention after completion of affidavits.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA,J.)
s.chandra
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!