Partly allowed

Dr. Kausik Paul v. Seacom Skills University and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 Dec 2022MAT/1297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable regarding the dismissal of a review application. It allowed the condonation of delay application and listed the main matter for hearing on merits in the next monthly list.

What did the court decide?

Appeal MAT 1297 of 2022 dismissed; delay in MAT 1298 of 2022 condoned; both matters listed for consideration on merits in January 2023.

Dr. Kausik Paul Vs Seacom Skills… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

19.12.2022

¶2

Item Nos. 04-05. Crt.No.11

¶3

b.r. MAT 1297 of 2022

¶4

Dr. Kausik Paul

¶5

-vs-

¶6

SEACOM Skills University & Ors. With MAT 1297 of 2022 IA No. CAN 1 of 2022, CAN 2 of 2022

¶7

Mr. Meghnad Dutta Mr. Abhishek Shaw ….. for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Souraghya Chatterjee Ms. Arpita Mukherjee

¶9

……… for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.

¶10

Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta Mr. Yogesh Sharma ….. for the University Grants Commission.

¶11

In Re: MAT 1297 of 2022

¶12

Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

¶13

MAT 1297 of 2022 is an appeal against the order of dismissal of the Review Application being RVW 60 of 2022 by an order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 25^th of July, 2022.

¶14

Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel, appears with Mr. Shaw, learned Advocate, for the appellant.

¶15

The appellant was both the writ petitioner and the review applicant before the Hon’ble Single Bench.

¶16

For the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appears with Ms. Mukherjee, learned Advocate.

¶17

¶18

The respondents/University Grants Commission is represented by Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned Advocate appearing behalf for Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel.

¶19

Having regard to the ratio laid down in (2021) 9 SCC 815, In Re: Municipal Corporation of Delhi –vsYashwant Negi, no appeal lies against the order dismissing the review and thereby affirming the parent order.

¶20

MAT 1297 of 2022 stands accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

¶21

In Re: MAT 1298 of 2022 IA No. CAN 1 of 2022 CAN 2 of 2022

¶22

Mr. Dutta also appears in support of MAT 1298 of 2022 which is an application challenging the parent order in the writ petition dated 23^rd March, 2022. It is submitted that MAT 1298 of 2022 is barred by delay.

¶23

In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the appellant has filed CAN 2 of 2022.

¶24

Copies of the application for condonation of delay have been served on the other parties.

¶25

Affidavit of Service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

¶26

Having regard to the cause shown for condonation of the delay, this Court finds the cause shown to be sufficient.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, the delay stands condoned.

¶29

IA No. CAN 2 of 2022 stands thus disposed of.

¶30

Let MAT 1298 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022 appear next under the same heading “Mentioned Matters” for consideration on merits in the Combined Monthly List of January, 2023.

¶31

All parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶32

(Supratim Bhattacharya,J.) (Subrata Talukdar,J.)

Dr. Kausik Paul v. Seacom Skills University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kausik Paul v. Seacom Skills University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhana Paul Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Nilima Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Dr Satyaki Mondal

Dipak Pramanick Vs the Wbsedcl & Ors.

Anamika Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Samiran Dutta Vs Lakshmi Rani Prasad Dey and Ors.