RATAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD
LAWS(CAL)-2019-8-16
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 01,2019

RATAN CHAKRABORTY Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This suit which was presented and admitted before this Court on 21st August, 2017 subject to scrutiny by the department. Plaintiff has, inter alia, made a prayer for a decree for a sum of Rs.57,96,476.11/- as shown and pleaded in paragraph 12 of the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid sum with effect from 21st March, 2017 till realization thereof. By an order dated 15th February, 2018 this Court on the basis of the report dated 2nd November, 2017 of the Deputy Registrar (Court and Judicial) recorded that defendant did not enter appearance either in person or through advocate till 2nd November, 2017. However, current status report was sought for and necessary direction was given to the department for furnishing status report as regards service upon the defendant. Subsequently, the matter was listed before a Coordinate Bench on 30th April, 2018 when after perusal of a report filed by the Registrar, Original Side dated 27th February, 2018. It was recorded that since no appearance either in person or through advocate was made by the defendant the matter might be placed as "un-defendant suits". Hearing of the suit was concluded on 17th July, 2019 even at that point of time no endeavour was made by the defendant to appear before this Court from 30th April, 2018 to 17th July, 2019. The suit appeared in the list on 15.05.2018, 12.06.2018, 22.11.2018, 19.12.2018, 20.12.2018, 29.06.2019 and 09.07.2019 but no one appeared for the defendant. As a result hearing was concluded.
(2.) Present suit has been filed in the Original Side of this Court under the third limb of Clause 12 of Letters Patent inasmuch as the defendant/Corporation has a situs and as such carries on business within the local limits of this Hon'ble Court in Original Side. Law is settled by the Special Bench of our High Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram -Vs. - Punjab & Sind Bank, 2009 1 CalHN 346 upholding the view of the Division Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. -Vs. - Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal,2002 1 CalLJ 366, that in a case where Corporation carries on business from within jurisdiction, no leave under Clause 12 is necessary to be taken regardless of where the cause of action in the suit might have arisen. Having regard to such settled legal position I hold that the suit is maintainable within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
(3.) In this case Mr. Ratan Chakraborty, the plaintiff himself appeared and deposed on 19th December, 2018. In his deposition the plaintiff says that "He was doing business of plastic mould components and he is the sole proprietor of M/S. Industrial Components Industries." In his deposition the plaintiff has endeavoured to prove that his suit is based on account of unpaid prices of goods sold and delivered. According to him the goods in question are Polymer Virgin Plug Prolypoplene which is used in the manufacture of paper. The goods were supplied pursuant to purchase orders placed by the defendant in respect of its two paper mills; (1) Cachar Paper Mill in Panchgram and (2) Nagaon Paper Mill at Kagajnagar, Assam.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.