Calcutta High Court
Tapabrata Bakshi & Anr vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors on 9 March, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 1277 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
TAPABRATA BAKSHI & ANR.
Versus
COAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 9th March, 2016.
Mr. Partha Ghosh,
Mr. Shamik Chatterjee, Advs.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Anubhav Sinha,
Ms. Radhika Misra, Advs.
The Court : The two partners of a firm known as M/s.
Praber & Co. are the petitioners in this writ petition. The partnership had
executed some work for the respondents, the payment for which had not
been made and they claim to be entitled to such payment. The writ petition was moved and upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties an interim order dated 7th September, 2006 was made, thereby directing the respondents to take necessary steps for payment of entire admissible dues of the petitioners within two weeks from the date of communication of that order.
2
The payment was not made. The petitioners applied in contempt against the respondents as they having had committed contempt of Court. The respondents or their representatives being the alleged contemners in the said contempt proceeding filed an affidavit-in-opposition in which they said the Authorities were agreeable and willing to clear off outstanding dues of Praber & Co. relating to all contracts but in view of the claim from the petitioners as well as the son of Sasanka Pal, the Authority was unable to clear the dues and considering such situation, the Authority had filed an interpleader suit being title suit no. 6 of 2002 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Durgapur against the petitioner and the heirs of Sasanka Pal which suit was pending.
Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted the said suit of the respondents stood dismissed. However in the meantime the contempt proceedings taken out by his client had been dropped by reason of the respondents having cited the pendency of that suit. He relied on a letter dated 16th June, 2015 written by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to the petitioner no. 1 which is disclosed at page 25 of the affidavit-in-reply filed. By that letter Eastern Coalfields Ltd. requested submission of necessary authorisation and bank account number of Praber & Co. and other relevant documents being copies of bills etc. for the 3 office to scrutinise so that due payment may be released at an early date as the documents called for were not readily traceable in the office.
Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had on an earlier occasion submitted by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International INC versus Union of India & Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 that the prayers in this writ petition being for enforcement of contractual rights and obligations, the same was not maintainable. He submitted further, there was letter dated 22nd September, 2006 issued by his client to the petitioner no. 1 with reference to order dated 7th September, 2006 informing the said petitioner there were no admissible dues but rather the said petitioner was liable to pay Eastern Coalfields consequential loss arising out of non-performance. He further relied on documents disclosed in pages 19 to 23 of the affidavit-in-opposition, as appearing from a copy thereof since the original is not in file, to submit those documents would go to show that there were disputes regarding the claim made.
There does not appear to be any dispute which would make the writ petition as one not maintainable being for enforcement of contractual rights which must be tried in a Civil Suit. The respondents, from what has been recorded above, appear to be willing to clear the dues regarding payment of work done by the partnership. The submission made 4 on behalf of the respondents relying on documents of the year 2005 and 2006 are prior to the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition filed in the contempt proceeding. The respondents, as it appears, earlier had taken their stand to deny payment for work that appears to have been done by the partnership firm. After having raised disputes they had told the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction that they were ready and willing to pay but could not pay because of a rival claim. Their interpleader suit having been dismissed, this Court can safely conclude that there is no dispute regarding the payments to be made on documents to be supplied by the petitioner, inspite of the submissions made from the bar otherwise, as there is no material in support thereof.
The respondent no. 4, as submitted by Mr. Sinha to be the appropriate authority, is to consider the claim of the petitioner as made in the writ petition with reference to their advocate's letter dated 23rd June, 2006 in the light of the observations made in this order. The said respondent will require the petitioner to present themselves or their representative for hearing to be granted in which the documents necessary they will furnish for scrutiny and assessment of their claims. The exercise is to be completed preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
5Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) TR/snn