Diamond Beverages Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Diamond Beverages Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations; the quantum-of-rates issue under the new TAMP is left to independent proceedings by the appellant; all pending connected applications are disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the subsequent events brought on record (the appellant's success in the fresh tendering process, continued possession under a 30-year lease, and unconditional acceptance of the Port Trust's letter of intent), the appeal challenging the learned Single Judge's order on the cancelled tender has become infructuous. +1 more

Court's answer

On account of the subsequent events on record, this Court is of the view that the appeal may have become infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

The subject matter of the appellant's Order XLI, Rule 27 application is outside the scope of the main writ petition; the issue regarding the quantum of rates under the new TAMP is left to be agitated by the appellant in independent proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. 364 of 2017 — Diamond Beverages Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (decided 01.04.2025; Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.). The appeal assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on the writ petitioners' grievances over cancellation of tenders floated by Shyama Prosad Mookherjee Port Trust for leasing out its lands. Subsequent events placed on record by supplementary affidavit — the appellant's participation in and success at the fresh tendering process governed by revised TAMP Guidelines, continued possession of about 7143.21 sq. m. on Taratala Road under a 30-year lease without renewal option, and an unconditional acceptance dated 17th October, 2017 of the Port Trust's letter of intent dated 10th October, 2016 — led the Court to hold that the appeal may have become infructuous. The appellant's application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code bringing new facts was held to lie outside the scope of the main writ petition, and the question of quantum of rates under the new TAMP was expressly left to be agitated in independent proceedings. The appeal and all pending connected applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.

01.04.2025. Item No. 5. Court No. 13

ap

M.A.T. 364 of 2017

With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 2706 of 2017) And

I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2017 (Old CAN 5363 of 2017)

Diamond Beverages Private Limited & Anr. Versus

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Airun Chakraborty,

Mr. Biswajit Chowdhury,

Mr. Jatan Munga.

…For the appellants.

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena.

…For the respondent Port Trust. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singhania.

…For the Union of India.

Let affidavits-in-opposition and replies to the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code as also to the supplementary affidavit and CAN 1 of 2017 being the stay application filed in Court today be kept with the record.

Mr. Airun Chakraborty, learned Counsel led by Mr. Sudhasavya Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court. He has also lucidly placed the facts of the case.

It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that the tenders floated by Shyama Prosad Mookherjee Port Trust for leasing out its lands, the two writ petitioners participated and had grievances with regard to the cancellation of the tender.

2

Before the learned Single Judge, Counsel for the Post Trust has submitted that a fresh tender and bidding process would commence soon and the same would be governed by a revised Tariff Authority for Major Port (TAMP) Guidelines that would be effective from 7^th April, 2016.

There have been subsequent events that have been brought in by the appellants by way of supplementary affidavit. It appears from the supplementary affidavit that the appellant has participated in the afresh tendering process, succeeded in the same and continues to be in possession of the plots of land under long term lease of 30 years, without option for renewal, comprising in about 7143.21 square meters on Taratala Road for industrial activities.

An unconditional acceptance dated 17^th October, 2017 of the Port Trust’s letter of intent dated 10^th October, 2016 is available in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Port Trust to the appellant’s application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code.

This Court is, therefore, of the view that the appeal may have become infructuous.

An application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code bringing in new facts and possibly a new cause of action has been filed by the appellant, M/s. Diamond Beverages Private Limited. This Court is of the view that the subject matter of the said application

3

is outside the scope of the main writ petition and the issue with regard to the quantum of rates under the new TAMP must be and are hereby left to be agitated in independent proceedings by the appellant.

This Court wises to record its appreciation for the diligence with which the appeal has been conducted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Airun Chakraborty.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal shall stand disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, all the pending connected applications are disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )