Calcutta High Court
Surya Alloy Industries Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 May, 2017
Bench: Nishita Mhatre, Tapabrata Chakraborty
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA 1583 of 2017
APOT 416 of 2016
CS 417 of 2012
SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
AND
C.C.No.9 of 2017
SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Versus
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, DIRECTOR GENERAL,
RESEARCH DESIGNS & STANDARDS ORGANISATION & ORS.
AND
C.C.No.18 of 2017
SHREE LAXMI IRON & STEEL WORKS PVT LTD
Versus
THE RESEARCH DESIGN & STANDARD
ORGANISATION (RDSO) & ORS.
AND
G.A.No.3565 of 2016
APOT 416 of 2016
CS 417 OF 2012
SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
AND
G.A.No.662 of 2017
APOT 416 of 2016
CS 417 OF 2012
SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
AND
2
G.A.No.3396 of 2016
APOT 392 of 2016
CS 360 OF 2012
SHREE LAXMI IRON & STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD.
Versus
RESEARCH DESIGN & STANDARD
ORGANISATION (RDSO) & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE NISHITA MHATRE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY
Date : 15th May, 2017.
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Shroff, Advocate
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Abhisekh Singh, Advocate
....for Appellant
Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Advocate
Ms. Srinanda Bose, Advocate
Mr. Avijit Dey, Advocate
...for Petitioner in [CC 18/2017 and APOT 392/2016]
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Advocate
...for RITES
Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate
Ms. A. Banerjee, Advocate
..for RDSO/Respondent nos. 2 and 3
Mr. Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Advocate ..for Respondent no.3, Konkan Railways.
... in APOT 392/2016.
3The Court : This application, being GA 662 of 2017, is for adding RITES as a party to the instant appeal. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by Senior Deputy General Manager (Civil) of the RITES Ltd. opposing the application on the ground that RITES was neither a necessary nor a proper party.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that RITES is required to be added as party respondent to the appeal.
Accordingly, prayer (a) of the application is allowed. However, prayer (b) will be considered later.
We have heard the matters for some time and unfortunately, the learned counsel appearing for RITES was of the view that we were passing orders without bothering to hear that party. Although we had made it clear to him that we would hear him, he insisted that our orders were being passed without hearing any other party but the appellant.
It is not possible for us to continue hearing these matters with such wild and baseless allegations made against us. Hence, all these matters shall be placed before another Bench.
Place them before the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya.
[ NISHITA MHATRE, |ACJ] [ TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.] sm