Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 778 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Mukand Sumi Special Steel Limited & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 January, 2025

Author: Amrita Sinha

Bench: Amrita Sinha

OD-2                             ORDER SHEET

                              WPO No.1195 of 2024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE.



                      MUKAND SUMI SPECIAL STEEL LIMITED & ANR.
                                VS
                      STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Date: 9th January, 2025.

                                                                  Appearance :
                                                  Mr. Sukwrit Mukherjee, Adv.
                                             Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Adv.
                                             Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                                       Ms. Sayani Gupta, Adv.
                                                           ..for the Petitioners.

                                                    Mr. Anand Farmania, Adv.
                                                   Ms. Indumoli Banerjee, Adv.
                                                                ..for the State.

                                                          Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv.
                                                         Mr. C. Kushwaha, Adv.
                                                         ...for Respondent no.3.

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners seeks stay of the proceedings

before MSME Council citing pendency of the issue before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Learned advocate representing the private respondent raises an

issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

4. Learned advocate representing the Council admits pendency of the

issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned advocate for

the Council submits that no step will be taken till judgment is

delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. Learned advocate representing the respondent no.3 raises an issue

and submits that the subject contract is not a works contract but a

service contract.

6. Whether the subject contract is a works contract or a service

contract is required to be adjudicated.

7. The respondents are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition

within a period of four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed

within a fortnight thereafter.

8. The copy of the writ petition sought to be served upon the

respondent no.3 has returned unserved. The envelope showing

return of the article is taken on record and the writ petition is

returned to the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioners.

9. Leave granted to the learned advocate representing the respondent

no.3 to file Vakalatnama in the department in course of tomorrow

(i.e.10.01.2025).

10. Liberty to mention for hearing.

(AMRITA SINHA, J.)

nm.