Dismissed¶25

Sukhada Tudu v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Jul 2024FMA/661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Saukhada Tudu vs Union of India & Ors., F.M.A. 661 of 2024, Calcutta High Court Appellate Side, decided 16.07.2024 by T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J. with Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. Keywords: collusive litigation writ petition husband wife; Indian Oil Corporation Limited lease petrol pump; ouster attempt rejected by Single Bench; selling license District Magistrate; civil Court eviction left open; appeal and CAN 1 of 2024 dismissed; no costs. Counsel: Sukumar Ghosh and Moumita Ghosh for appellant; M.S. Yadav, Saswati Chatterjee, Satabdi Naskar, Sandipto Bose, Rishi Bhattacharya, Prabir Maji for respondents.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal and the connected application (I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024) dismissed with no costs, upholding the Single Bench order; District Magistrate directed to ensure the selling license is issued in accordance with law.

Sukhada Tudu Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Bench rightly treated the writ petition as collusive litigation between the husband and wife and rejected their attempt to oust Indian Oil Corporation Limited from the premises. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Court, after elaborate hearing, was fully in agreement with the doubt expressed by the learned Single Bench that the writ petition itself was a collusive litigation between the husband (private respondent) and wife (appellant).

¶22

Ratio / Principle

By virtue of the collusive litigation, the appellant and her husband/private respondent were attempting to oust Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the lessee operating the petrol pump, out of the premises.

¶23

Key takeaways

The District Magistrate shall ensure that the selling license is issued in accordance with law.ratio¶24
Finding no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Bench, the appeal and the connected application (I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024) were dismissed, with no costs.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. concurring) dismisses F.M.A. 661of 2024, Saukhada Tudu v. Union of India & Ors. (heard and delivered 16.07.2024). Agreeing with the learned Single Bench, the Court held the writ petition to be collusive litigation between the wife-appellant and her husband (private respondent), mounted to oust Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the lessee in whose favour land was leased and on whose premises a petrol pump stood. The Single Bench's rejection of the attempt was affirmed: no ground for interference. The Court directed the District Magistrate to ensure the selling license is issued in accordance with law, noted the writ Court's leave to approach the civil Court including for eviction, and dismissed the appeal and I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 with no costs.

¶1

Form No. J.(2) Item No. 35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

HEARD ON: 16.07.2024

¶4

DELIVERED ON: 16.07.2024

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

¶8

F.M.A. 661of 2024

¶9

With

¶10

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024

¶11

Saukhada Tudu

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Union of India & Ors.

¶14

Appearance:Mr. Sukumar Ghosh Ms. Moumita Ghosh …………for the appellant

¶15

Mr. M.S. Yadav

¶16

Ms. Saswati Chatterjee Ms. Satabdi Naskar ……….for the respondents 2 to 4

¶17

Mr. Sandipto Bose Mr. Rishi Bhattacharya ……….for the respondents 12 & 13

¶18

Mr. Prabir Maji …….for the respondent no. 14 JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

¶20

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. After elaborately hearing the submissions on either side, we are fully in agreement

¶21

¶22

with the doubt expressed by the learned Single Bench that the writ petition itself was a collusive litigation between the husband and wife/appellant. The appellant is the wife and the private respondent is the husband.

¶23

Admittedly, there is a lease of land granted in favour of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and a petrol pump has been established. By virtue of this collusive litigation, now the appellant as well as her husband/private respondent are attempting to oust Indian Oil Corporation Limited out of the premises. This attempt was rightly rejected by the learned Single Bench.

¶24

The District Magistrate shall ensure that the selling license is issued in accordance with law. The learned writ Court had also left it open to the parties to approach the civil Court including for eviction, if so advised.

¶25

Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application (I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024) are dismissed.

¶26

No costs.

¶27

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree.

¶28

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶29

Pallab/KS AR(Ct.)

Sukhada Tudu v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhada Tudu v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Vs M/S. Wadhwani Commodities Trading Represented by Its Proprietor Mr. Chandra Prakash Wadhwani

Commissioner of Customs (Port) ,Kolkata Vs Shri Mahendra Kumar Modi Proprietor of M/S. Bajrang Expo

Commissioner of Custom (Port) Kolkata Vs Chandra Prakash Wadhwani Proprietor of M/S. Wadhwani Commodities Trading

Askar Ali Vs Surendra Kr. Meena

Samir Sadhukhan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Shyambazar Division Kolkata and Ors.

Giyasuddin Molla Vs the Asst Commr of Cgst and Central Execise, Budge Budge Div, Kolkata South Commissionerate and Ors.