Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soma Das Moitra vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 July, 2017
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
MAT 968 of 2017
Form No. J(2)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice: Rakesh Tiwari
And
The Hon'ble Justice: Asha Arora
MAT 968 of 2017
With
CAN 5717 of 2017
Soma Das Moitra.....................Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.......Respondents
For Appellant...... Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury Mr. Arindam Sen Mr. Sourav Basu For Respondent Mr. Indranil Roy No. 7...................Mr. Sayan Sinha For Respondent Mr. Prasun Mukherjee Nos. 5 & 6......... Mr. Dipak Agarwal For State..............Mr. Santanu Mitra Mr. Moloy Roy Heard on: 29.6.2017 & 6.7.2017 Judgment on: 6.7.2017 Justice Rakesh Tiwari: 1
MAT 968 of 2017 Learned Counsel for the HPCL has brought to our notice an order dated 15th May, 2017 from which it appears that the licence of the dealership had been cancelled vide order dated 15th May, 2017 by the authority for the reason that Sri Kamalendu Moitra (since deceased), father of the two daughters had expired and they could not submit partnership deed due to dispute or litigation pending before this Court.
Mr. Indranil Roy, learned Counsel for respondent no.7/writ petitioner submits that he has also filed a writ petition, being WP No. 15879(W) of 2017 with a prayer for setting aside the order passed by the Director of Consumer Goods, Government of West Bengal dated 15th May, 2017 referred to above by which the licence had been cancelled. Therefore, the finality of the order is under challenge before the Court.
It is also submitted that as the claim of share of the two daughters, parties herein, was under cloud of litigation, the order dated 15th May, 2017 cancelling the licence ought not to have been passed.
The matter was heard at length on 29th June, 2017. The appellant and respondent no.7 indicated that they are agreeable to constitute a partnership firm keeping their family dispute with regard to share in the petroleum business. 2
MAT 968 of 2017 Ms. Soma Das Moitra, the appellant herein and Ms. Sumana Das Roy, respondent no.7/writ petitioner have agreed before the Court that they would be reconstituting the partnership firm and presenting/submitting a joint partnership deed before the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. within 15 (fifteen) days from today, showing that each one of them would be entitled to 50% share in profit and loss together with equal representation in the business effective from the date of submission of the partnership deed, subject to the decision in suit proceedings.
We note that the suit, being Title Suit no. 5 of 2017, is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Sealdah.
Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant also expressed his client's intention to prefer a separate suit praying for relief in favour of his client on the ground that the appellant would not get any relief in the suit no. 5 of 2017 preferred by the other sister.
We have been given to understand that there has been no break in the supply because of the interim order impugned in this appeal. Since the supply is admittedly being made till today as informed by all the parties concerned, the same shall be continued till the issuance of licence in joint names of the sisters who are reconstituting the dealership firm or disposal of the application for grant of licence to them, whichever is earlier.
3
MAT 968 of 2017 Upon hearing all the parties and in view of the consensus decision reached between the parties concerned, the order dated 15th May, 2017 is set aside. The writ petition no. 1835(W) of 2017 is accordingly disposed of. The heirs of Kamalendu Moitra (since deceased), the two daughters namely, Ms. Soma Das Moitra and Sumana Das Roy shall move a joint application before the Director of Consumer Goods within a period of ten days from today for grant of fresh licence in their names. As the earlier licence in the name of their father was cancelled only because of the fact that they could not submit application/deed reconstituting the firm and for grant of licence as aforesaid. Their application(s) will be considered favourably by the authorities in accordance with law.
We make it clear that this arrangement is temporary in nature to enable the parties to complete the legal formalities and the authorities to pass appropriate orders. In the event, joint application is not filed within the stipulated period, appropriate order may be passed by the Oil Company for discontinuing the supply.
Learned Advocates on record for the parties are appointed as Special Officers to maintain the books of accounts in respect of the business. Each of the learned Advocates shall be paid Rs. 5,000/- per month to be borne by the respective parties.
The application, being CAN 3498 of 2017, arising out of WP No. 1835(W) of 2017, stands withdrawn by the appellant in terms of this order. 4
MAT 968 of 2017 This order has been passed in open Court in presence of the parties themselves as well as their learned advocates.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid directions. The application for stay is also disposed of in same terms.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on priority basis.
(Rakesh Tiwari, J.)
(Asha Arora, J.)
5
MAT 968 of 2017
6