TALAPATRA,J. - (1.)This is an appeal under Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC from the judgment dtd. 7/1/2019 delivered in T.S. 01(Com) of 2016 by the District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar.
(2.)By the said judgment dtd. 7/1/2019 the commercial suit instituted by the appellant has been dismissed on returning the finding that the agreement dtd. 18/10/2004 cannot be acted upon and hence, the action to renew the licence in favour of Chunilal Banik for the period from 24/5/2008 to 3/9/2012 by the respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be challenged by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, and hence, the question of compensating the plaintiff for loss of his business due to denial to the action in renewing the licence in favour of Chunilal Banik for the period from 24/5/2008 to 3/9/2012 cannot be decided in favour of the plaintiff.
(3.)It has been further observed that by the agreement dtd. 18/10/2004 Chunilal Banik transferred all his rights emanating from the licence for running a saw mill or wood-based industry, in favour of M/S Fortuna Agro Plantations Limited. By dint of the said agreement, the plaintiff has claimed to have carried on the business. But from the facts as established by evidence, it is apparent that Chunilal Banik passed away. The agreement dtd. 18/10/2004 as entered by the plaintiff and M/S Industrial Saw Mills is an instrument of transfer, which act has been prohibited by statute. Consequently, the suit has been dismissed. This particular finding and its consequences have been challenged in this appeal.
;