Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rawalwasia And Sons Exim Limited ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 8 June, 2022
June 8, 2022
Sl. No.29 & 30
Court No.1
s.biswas
MAT 1101 of 2021
With
CAN 1 of 2021
CAN 2 of 2021
CAN 3 of 2021
Rawalwasia and Sons Exim Limited and others
vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
And
In the matter of :
Parakh Projects Private Limited and another
...applicants/appellants
AND
MAT 1123 of 2021
and
CAN 1 of 2021
CAN 2 of 2021
CAN 3 of 2021
The Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Limited
vs.
Rawalwasia and Sons Exim Limited and others
Mr. Sakya Sen,
Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Advocates
... for the appellants
in MAT 1101 of 2021
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
Mr. Himadri Sikhar Chakraborty,
Mr. Naren Ghosh,
Ms. Debdooti Dutta, Advocates
... for the State respondent
in MAT 1101 of 2021
Mr. Ankit Sureka, Advocate
... for the Baidyabati Sheoraphuli
Cooperative Bank Limited
Mr. Sanjib Dutta,
Mr. Sk. Sujauddin, Advocates
... for the respondents/writ petitioners
in MAT 1101 of 2021
Mr. Sanjib Dutta,
Mr. Monoj Kurmi, Advocates
... for the respondents/writ petitioners
in MAT 1123 of 2021
MAT 1101 of 2021 and another
CAN 3 of 2021 in MAT 1101 of 2021 and CAN 3 of
2021 in MAT 1123 have been filed seeking leave to file
appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd April,
2021.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants
in both the appeals is that though the appellants are
directly affected by the order of learned Single Judge, they
were not made party in the writ petition. It has been
pointed out that the appellants are the necessary parties
in the writ petition.
In CAN 3 of 2021 in MAT 1101 of 2021, learned
counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the order
of injunction was existing which was in favour of the
appellants, but was not brought in the notice of the Court
and in such circumstances, the impleadment of the
appellants was necessary.
Similar is the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant in CAN 3 of 2021 in MAT 1123 of 2021 that
Bank was a necessary party and respondent No.6 in the
writ petition was only the Acting Chief Manager and the
Bank was not impleaded separately.
In view of above submission, CAN 3 of 2021 in MAT
1101 of 2021 and CAN 3 of 2021 in MAT 1123 of 2021
are allowed and the appellants are granted leave to file
appeal.
In MAT 1123 of 2021, CAN 1 of 2021 has been filed
seeking condonation of delay. It has been pointed out by
MAT 1101 of 2021 and another
learned counsel for the appellant that there is a delay of
99 days in filing the appeal.
Having regard to the explanation which has been
furnished in the application for condonation of delay and
the plea that the appellant was not a party in the writ
petition and also considering the fact that another appeal
as against the same order is already pending, CAN 1 of
2021 in MAT 1123 of 2021 is allowed and the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on merit with consent.
Order is reserved.
Interim order will continue till the final order is
passed.
[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]
[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]
