Naru Gopal Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4952 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Naru Gopal Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 114




              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
                And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth



                            M.A.T. 1344 of 2024
                                (CAN 1 of 2024)
                               (CAN 2 of 2024)

                               Naru Gopal Das
                                    -Vs-
                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Appellant       :     Mr. Dhiman Ray, Adv.,
                              Mr. Dip Chanda, Adv.,
                              Mrt. Pritam Modak, Adv.


Heard on                :     24.09.2024


Judgment on             :     24.09.2024


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

                              Re : C. A. N. 2 of 2024



1.

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Having considered the averments in the application for condonation

of delay and being satisfied, delay in preferring the appeal is

condoned.

3. Accordingly, the application being CAN 2 of 2024 is disposed of.

Re : M. A. T. 1344 of 2024

4. Appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 26.04.2024

passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench whereby the writ petition was

disposed of giving the appellant liberty to avail appellate remedy

under Section 139 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act to

assail the award.

5. Appellant contends though notice of hearing was served upon him,

he was denied an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, award was

passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. We have considered the submission in light of the materials on

record. Admittedly, notice was served upon appellant and he

attended the hearing. During the hearing or soon thereafter,

appellant did not raise any grievance that he was prevented from

making submission. Belatedly, he has taken this stance.

7. In light of the aforesaid facts and the existence of statutory

appellate remedy, we are of the view no interference is called for.

8. Accordingly, appeal and the connected application being CAN 1 of

2024 are dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to

the parties on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

as