Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Disposed Of) vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 June, 2018
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
21.06.2018 WP 8182 (W) of 2018
Court No. 02
Item No. SL - 09
snandy
M/s Rashmi Ispat Limited & Anr.
(DISPOSED OF)
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarofdar, Advocate
Mr. Sambuddha Dutta, Advocate
.... for the Petitioner
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, Senior Advocate
Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Payel Banerjee, Advocate
.... for the Respondents
This is virtually a second round of litigation before this Court at the behest of the petitioner.
On an earlier occasion, the petitioner challenged the show cause notices issued by the railway authorities raising a money demand on the alleged discrepancies and/or irregularities in business transactions. While entertaining the aforesaid writ-petitions, this Court passed an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned show cause notices. Simultaneously, the Court also stayed the impugned notices and the aforesaid interim orders were operative till February 15, 2017.
It is not in dispute that the said interim order is still continuing having extended from time to time. However, a liberty was granted to the railway authorities for filing appropriate suit before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
What can be seen from the aforesaid orders that though the railway authorities were restrained from proceeding any further on the basis of the show cause notices and the said show-cause notices were stayed yet the liberty was granted to the railway authorities to file a civil suit for realization of the demand.
The sum and substance of challenge in the instant writ-
2petition is against the demand notices issued by the railway authorities on December 20, 2017. It is manifest from the contents of the said notices that there is a reference of the show-cause notices and the direction is passed therein to deposit the amount due to the railway authorities by way of demand draft within seven days from the date of the notices. Naturally such notices have been construed by the petitioner, a final adjudication of the disputes on the basis of the show- cause notices and challenge is founded on the premise that it has been done in palpable violation of the interim orders passed by this Court in an earlier writ-petition.
In other words Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that any action on the teeth of an order of injunction is illegal and the Court should not extend its blessings to the authorities.
Mr. P.S. Bose, learned senior counsel appearing for the railway authorities submits that though there is a reference of a show-cause notices in the said demand notice but such reference was made inadvertently as the authority never adjudicated nor acted further on the basis of the aforesaid show-cause notices. He further submits that the said demand notices were issued as the authorities thought it fit that unless the demand is raised the suit for recovery of money cannot be filed.
If the submission advanced by Mr. Bose is considered in the manner as it has been done, it is the stand of the railway authorities that there is no final adjudication on the disputed amount but it was mere a notice raising a demand and the adjudication shall be made by the Civil Court in a civil suit to be filed by the railway authorities. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the authorities would take further steps for realization of the said amount on the basis of the said demand notice appears to be premature nor this Court finds that any attempt is made on the part of the railway authorities to take coercive measures for realization 3 thereof.
There is no hesitation in my mind that if a party is restrained by an order of injunction passed by the competent Court any act done during the subsistence of the said restraint order is per se illegal.
In view of the specific stand taken by Mr. Bose, learned senior counsel appearing for the railway authorities that no further steps or coercive measures shall be taken on the basis of the demand notice as it is a mere demand required for institution of the suit for recovery of money, this Court does not feel that any further order is necessary in the instant writ petition.
The writ petition is thus disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J)