Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. & Anr vs National Jute Board & Anr on 13 December, 2018

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

ORDER SHEET
                                      WP No.612 of 2018
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                       ORIGINAL SIDE



                        MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD. & ANR.
                                        Versus
                              NATIONAL JUTE BOARD & ANR.


       BEFORE:
      The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
      Date : 13th December, 2018.

                                                              Appearance:
                                                       Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
                                                       Ms. Rajshree Kajaria, Adv.
                                                       Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyay, Adv.
                                                            ..for petitioners.
                                                       Mr. Koushik Chanda,Sr. Adv.,ASG
                                                       Mr. Joydip Banerjee Adv.
                                                       Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv.
                                                       Mr. S.P.Chattopadhyay, Adv.
                                                              ..for Respondent no.1.

The Court:-Letters of demand dated 10th May, 2018 and 14th September, 2018 issued by National Jute Board on jute mills belonging to petitioners have been impugned in this writ petition. Mr.Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, under a subsidy scheme his client had purchased machines to be retained by his client in running the jute mills for period of five years. Unannounced inspections were carried by the authority to result in this unsubstantiated demand on allegations of the machines not have been there amounting to allegations of misappropriation of subsidy.

Mr. Chanda, learned senior advocate, Additional Solicitor General, appears on behalf of the authority and submits, these 2 schemes are subject matter of two suits filed for obtaining decrees by establishing in evidence, misappropriation of subsidy by petitioners.

In view of record of submissions made on behalf of the authority regarding filing of suits pertaining to subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, the same need not be gone into.

On above observation, writ petition is disposed of.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) nm