Government of West Bengal and Another Vs. Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1098320
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnNov-26-2013
JudgeSUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
AppellantGovernment of West Bengal and Another
RespondentChatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company and Others
Excerpt:
order sheet in the high court at calcutta civil appellate jurisdiction original side ga no.3404 of 2013 with apo186of 2013 cs no.152 of 2012 government of west bengal & another versus chatterjee petrochem (mauritius) company and others ga no.1607 of 2013 apo186of 2013 with cs no.152 of 2012 government of west bengal & another versus chatterjee petrochem (mauritius) company and others ga no.1609 of 2013 apo187of 2013 with cs no.152 of 2012 haldia petrochemicals limited versus chatterjee petrochem (mauritius) company and others before: the hon’ble justice subhro kamal mukherjee and the hon’ble justice asim kumar mondal date: november 26, 2013. for government of west bengal: mr.bimal chatterjee, mr.mayank mishra, mr.manoj kumar tiwari. for the west bengal industrial development corporation: mr.s.k.kapur, mr.ravi kapur, mr.amal gupta, mr.sanjoy ginodia. for haldia petrochemicals ltd.: mr.pratap chatterjee, mr.jishnu saha, mr.sayan roy chowdhury, mr.aditya garodia. for chatterjee petrochem (mauritius) company: mr.siddharthra mitra, ms.moushumi bhattacharya, mr.s.dutta. the court: supplementary affidavit filed by learned advocate general be kept with record. haldia petrochemicals ltd.(hpl) instituted a suit in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court, which was registered as c.s.no.152 of 2012. the suit is, in substance, to restrain the defendants to proceed with the arbitral proceedings at paris. in such a suit chatterjee petrochem (mauritius) company ltd.(cpmcl).the defendant no.1 in the suit, filed an application, in substance, to restrain the plaintiff and the co-defendants, that is, government of west bengal and the west bengal industrial development corporation (wbidc).not to deal with 155 million shares in hpl. the hon’ble single judge, by judgment and order dated may 16, 2013, disposed of such application, inter alia, by restraining wbidc from altering the present shareholding of hpl by sale of or otherwise dealing with the 155 million shares, which were the subject matter of dispute between west bengal government and chatterjee group. however, no injunction was granted with regard to the balance 520 million shares. the chatterjee group was granted liberty to get an order in their favour in the civil forum, whether arbitration or a court of law, with regard to 155 million shares by july 15, 2013. in default, liberty was granted to wbidc to deal with or transfer those 155 million shares. hpl and wbidc were granted liberty to alter the above “time line” of this disinvestment according to the above order. against such order two appeals have been preferred. a.p.o.no.186 of 2013 has been filed by government of west bengal and wbidc and a.p.o.no.187 of 2013 has been filed by hpl. in connection with such appeals two interlocutory applications being g.a.no.1607 of 2013 and g.a.no.1609 of 2013 were filed and those applications came up for consideration before us. on june 7, 2013 we admitted the appeals and passed an interim order that it would be open, during the pendency of the aforementioned applications, to wbidc to obtain offers from the intending purchasers of the said shares, but it would not transfer the shares without the leave of this court. the matter was again listed before us on june 11, 2013 when we directed analogous hearing of both the appeals and, further, directed that interim order, already, granted would continue during the pendency of these appeals. we, also, fixed the hearing of the appeals on july 11, 2013. two special leave petitions were filed challenging the aforementioned orders in the supreme court of india; those applications were registered as civil appeal nos.10183 – 10187 of 2013. by judgment and order dated november 1, 2013, the supreme court of india disposed of the aforementioned civil appeals with the following directions: “however, keeping in view the history of litigation between them and the fact that the issue relating to maintainability of the arbitration filed by the appellants is pending consideration before this court, we are convinced that the order passed by the learned single judge was just and proper and the division bench should not have entertained the prayer made by respondent nos.1 and 2 and granted leave to west bengal industrial development corporation to obtain offers in respect of 155 million shares along with other shares. the appeals are accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders with liberty to respondent no.3 to file an appropriate application before the learned single judge. the order passed by the learned single judge shall remain operative for a period of three weeks from today. if respondent no.3 files an application for modification of that order then such application shall, as far as possible, be decided by the learned single judge within three weeks.” (emphasis supplied) what is important is that the supreme court of india, inter alia, held that it was not proper for the division bench to entertain the prayer made by the government of west bengal and wbidc and to grant leave to wbidc to obtain offers in respect of 155 million shares along with other shares. what is more important is that the supreme court of india held that the order of the hon’ble single judge was just and proper. an application being t.a.no.109 of 2013 was fled by cpmc before the hon’ble single judge. we are informed that the said application has, since, been registered as g.a.no.3399 of 2013. the hon’ble single judge thought that judicial discipline and propriety demanded that express leave should be obtained from the division bench before the hon’ble single judge could proceed to entertain the aforementioned application. mr.bimal chatterjee, learned advocate general appearing for the government of west bengal, mr.s.k.kapoor, learned senior advocate for wbidc and mr.pratap chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of hpl, strenuously, argued that the supreme court of india has passed the said order on wrong premises. it was not informed to the supreme court of india that aforementioned appeals were against two interlocutory orders passed in these appeals and that was an interim arrangement. therefore, there is no embargo for this court to proceed with the hearing of these appeals on merits. per contra, mr.sidhhartha mitra, learned senior advocate, submits that in view of the finding of the supreme court of india in the order dated november 1, 2013 that the order passed by the hon’ble single judge was just and proper these appeals have become infractuous due to such subsequent order and nothing is left to be decided on merits in these appeals. once the supreme court of india, in presence of the contesting parties, held that the order impugned in these appeals was just and proper, we have no scope to take any different view in these appeals. we are of the opinion that when supreme court of india has held in the said appeals that the order impugned in these appeals passed by the hon’ble single judge was just and proper, we cannot take any different view in these appeals. these appeals have, thus, become infructuous as nothing is left to be decided on merits in these appeals. consequently, the appeals are dismissed as infructuous. all interlocutory applications, including the application ga3404of 2013, have, also, become infructuous as we dismissed these appeals. accordingly, the said applications are, also, dismissed as infructuous. we, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these appeals. all parties are to act on a signed photostat copy of this order on the usual undertakings. (subhro kamal mukherjee, j.) (asim kumar mondal, j.) nm/gh.
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.3404 of 2013 with APO186of 2013 CS No.152 of 2012 GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER Versus CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (MAURITIUS) COMPANY AND OTHERS GA No.1607 of 2013 APO186of 2013 with CS No.152 of 2012 GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER Versus CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (MAURITIUS) COMPANY AND OTHERS GA No.1609 of 2013 APO187of 2013 with CS No.152 of 2012 HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED Versus CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (MAURITIUS) COMPANY AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE And The Hon’ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL DATE: November 26, 2013.

For Government of West Bengal: Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Mr.Mayank Mishra, Mr.Manoj Kumar Tiwari.

For the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation: Mr.S.K.Kapur, Mr.Ravi Kapur, Mr.Amal Gupta, Mr.Sanjoy Ginodia.

For Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.: Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Mr.Jishnu Saha, Mr.Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Mr.Aditya Garodia.

For Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company: Mr.Siddharthra Mitra, Ms.Moushumi Bhattacharya, Mr.S.Dutta.

The Court: Supplementary affidavit filed by learned Advocate General be kept with record.

Haldia Petrochemicals LTD.(HPL) instituted a suit in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, which was registered as C.S.No.152 of 2012.

The suit is, in substance, to restrain the defendants to proceed with the arbitral proceedings at Paris.

In such a suit Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company Ltd.(CPMCL).the defendant No.1 in the suit, filed an application, in substance, to restrain the plaintiff and the co-defendants, that is, Government of West Bengal and the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC).not to deal with 155 million shares in HPL.

The Hon’ble single Judge, by judgment and order dated May 16, 2013, disposed of such application, inter alia, by restraining WBIDC from altering the present shareholding of HPL by sale of or otherwise dealing with the 155 million shares, which were the subject matter of dispute between West Bengal Government and Chatterjee group.

However, no injunction was granted with regard to the balance 520 million shares.

The Chatterjee Group was granted liberty to get an order in their favour in the civil forum, whether arbitration or a Court of law, with regard to 155 million shares by July 15, 2013.

In default, liberty was granted to WBIDC to deal with or transfer those 155 million shares.

HPL and WBIDC were granted liberty to alter the above “time line” of this disinvestment according to the above order.

Against such order two appeals have been preferred.

A.P.O.No.186 of 2013 has been filed by Government of West Bengal and WBIDC and A.P.O.No.187 of 2013 has been filed by HPL.

In connection with such appeals two interlocutory applications being G.A.No.1607 of 2013 and G.A.No.1609 of 2013 were filed and those applications came up for consideration before us.

On June 7, 2013 we admitted the appeals and passed an interim order that it would be open, during the pendency of the aforementioned applications, to WBIDC to obtain offers from the intending purchasers of the said shares, but it would not transfer the shares without the leave of this Court.

The matter was again listed before us on June 11, 2013 when we directed analogous hearing of both the appeals and, further, directed that interim order, already, granted would continue during the pendency of these appeals.

We, also, fixed the hearing of the appeals on July 11, 2013.

Two Special Leave Petitions were filed challenging the aforementioned orders in the Supreme Court of India; those applications were registered as Civil Appeal Nos.10183 – 10187 of 2013.

By judgment and order dated November 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of India disposed of the aforementioned civil appeals with the following directions: “However, keeping in view the history of litigation between them and the fact that the issue relating to maintainability of the arbitration filed by the appellants is pending consideration before this Court, we are convinced that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was just and proper and the Division Bench should not have entertained the prayer made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and granted leave to West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation to obtain offers in respect of 155 million shares along with other shares.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders with liberty to respondent No.3 to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain operative for a period of three weeks from today.

If respondent No.3 files an application for modification of that order then such application shall, as far as possible, be decided by the learned Single Judge within three weeks.” (emphasis supplied) What is important is that the Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that it was not proper for the Division Bench to entertain the prayer made by the Government of West Bengal and WBIDC and to grant leave to WBIDC to obtain offers in respect of 155 million shares along with other shares.

What is more important is that the Supreme Court of India held that the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was just and proper.

An application being T.A.No.109 of 2013 was fled by CPMC before the Hon’ble Single Judge.

We are informed that the said application has, since, been registered as G.A.No.3399 of 2013.

The Hon’ble Single Judge thought that judicial discipline and propriety demanded that express leave should be obtained from the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Single Judge could proceed to entertain the aforementioned application.

Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, learned Advocate General appearing for the Government of West Bengal, Mr.S.K.Kapoor, learned Senior advocate for WBIDC and Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of HPL, strenuously, argued that the Supreme Court of India has passed the said order on wrong premises.

It was not informed to the Supreme Court of India that aforementioned appeals were against two interlocutory orders passed in these appeals and that was an interim arrangement.

Therefore, there is no embargo for this Court to proceed with the hearing of these appeals on merits.

Per contra, Mr.Sidhhartha Mitra, learned senior advocate, submits that in view of the finding of the Supreme Court of India in the order dated November 1, 2013 that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge was just and proper these appeals have become infractuous due to such subsequent order and nothing is left to be decided on merits in these appeals.

Once the Supreme Court of India, in presence of the contesting parties, held that the order impugned in these appeals was just and proper, we have no scope to take any different view in these appeals.

We are of the opinion that when Supreme Court of India has held in the said appeals that the order impugned in these appeals passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge was just and proper, we cannot take any different view in these appeals.

These appeals have, thus, become infructuous as nothing is left to be decided on merits in these appeals.

Consequently, the appeals are dismissed as infructuous.

All interlocutory applications, including the application GA3404of 2013, have, also, become infructuous as we dismissed these appeals.

Accordingly, the said applications are, also, dismissed as infructuous.

We, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these appeals.

All parties are to act on a signed photostat copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J.) (ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, J.) nm/GH.