LAWS(TRIP)-2023-8-6

TRIPURA OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. SABYASACHI KAR

Decided On August 31, 2023
Tripura Other Backward Classes Co-Operative Development Corporation Ltd Appellant
V/S
Sabyasachi Kar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ appeal is directed challenging the legality of the impugned judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.379 of 2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the original petitioner [here-in-after referred to as the respondent No.1] was allowed.

(2.) The essential facts arising out of the instant appeal as projected by the appellants are required to be briefly revisited. The main grievance of the original petitioner namely, Sri Sabyasachi Kar, i.e. the respondent no.1 herein was that he being the employee (LDC) of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council [for short, TTAADC] stood as a guarantor in favour of Sri Shantanu Das, the respondent no.8 herein ( i.e. the respondent no.10 in the original writ petition) who had borrowed a loan amounting to Rs.4,75,000.00 from the Tripura Other Backward Classes Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.[for short, Tripura OBC Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.]. But, the respondent-borrower failed to repay the borrowed loan amount to the appellants, i.e. the Tripura OBC Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. Having found the respondent no.8 a defaulter, the appellants had made a communication on 21/8/2019 informing the respondent no.1 about outstanding loan amount of Rs.5,69,276.00 only which would be recoverable from the salary of the respondent no.1 @ Rs.5,930.00 per month w.e.f. 2019. The respondent no.1 had challenged the impugned letter dtd. 21/8/2019, by filing a writ petition before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge having considered the pleadings and on the basis of the submissions of learned counsel of the parties, allowed the writ petition directing the respondent-appellants as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal stating inter alia that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and it has not been passed in its true perspective.