AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Patherya, J.—By this writ petition the petitioners (Blackberry) seek to prohibit the authorities from giving effect to the order dated 6th August, 2014 passed in M. Case No. 819/A of 2013 so also non-interference with Blackberry''s peaceful occupation and possession in the said premises and for restoration of possession.
The case of Blackberry is that the order dated 6th August, 2014 was passed on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 4 (Orbit) in April 2013 against Sudipta in respect of an alleged blockade caused over an alleged path. There is no path as alleged by Orbit, instead the said alleged path is comprised in a piece of land of which Blackberry is the owner. The original owner of the subject premise was Fort William Company Limited which went into liquidation. The Official Liquidator took possession of all the properties of the said Company (in liquidation) and in sale proceedings the subject premises was purchased by one Sudipta Traders (Sudipta). Subsequent on an application filed by Sudipta, the Official Liquidator was allowed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in the name of Sudipta and Blackberry as a co-purchaser. The Official Liquidator after receiving a letter from the Konnagar Municipality wherein, the no objection of the Municipality was recorded, possession of the property was handed over to Sudipta in the presence of the Chairman, Konnagar Municipality. That 20.952 acres was sold to Blackberry and Sudipta by the Official Liquidator is admitted. The dispute sought to be raised is in respect of a 25'' wide road way on the land of the petitioner Blackberry which the Municipality claims is a public road and Gujarat Composite and Orbit claim as a common passage.
For the first time, in April 2007 Gujarat Composite Ltd. claimed a right in the common passage stretching from G.T. Road through the premises purchased by Blackberry. The said claim was rejected by order dated 11th February, 2011. The appeal filed was also dismissed, and liberty given to Gujarat Composite to initiate independent proceedings in accordance with law.
In the deed of Gujarat Composite there is no mention of a common passage. In the MOU of 2008 executed between the Municipality and Sudipta there is also no mention of a common passage. The plea of a common passage has assumed importance only after grant of sub-lease by Gujarat Composite to the respondent No. 4 (Orbit) in 2011. Even in the sale notice published by the Official Liquidator so also in the valuation report of the valuer appointed by the Official Liquidator, there is no mention of any common passage far less a public road.
It is for the first time that the said public road finds mention in the deed of transfer between Gujarat Composite Ltd. and Orbit in 2011. The reason for doing so is to enable Orbit to have easy access from G.T. Road to the land transferred to it by Gujarat Composite. Orbit is engaged in developing properties and, therefore, connect will be needed by it from G.T. Road to its premises and the best connect from G.T. Road to Orbit''s property will be through the land of Blackberry.
In fact, a lease was executed in 2007 between the Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal and Gujarat Composite for a period of 99 years. In the said document too, there is no mention of a common passage or a public road. It has been categorically stated that to the East is the area of Fort William Company, but, there is no mention of a public road.
The complaint on the basis of which the order dated 6th August, 2014 has been passed is dated 29th April, 2013 and was filed with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Serampore, Hooghly against Sudipta by Orbit under Section 147 Cr.P.C.
Orbit is the successor in interest of Gujarat Composite and, therefore, is bound by the order passed against Gujarat Composite in February 2011.
Section 147 of Cr.P.C. postulates dispute in respect of right of user of land and water. On receipt of the complaint the Executive Magistrate is to make an order in writing with reasons calling all concerned persons to attend his Court. Blackberry although a concerned person was given no notice of hearing. The proviso to Section 147 (3) makes the 3 months period mandatory as held in 14 Cr.L.J. 303 , Hitlal Mahton Vs. Bhikhari Mahton and Others, and Bhola Mahton Vs. Bhattu Baitha, .
Orbit in its complaint has alleged blockade by Sudipta in 2009 when the agreement between Orbit and Gujarat Composite Ltd. is in 2011. No blockade has been alleged in 2013.
In April 2013 it came to light that an attempt was being made by Sudipta and its associates to create unauthorised pakka structure over the common passage.
The Executive Magistrate without recording whether the ingredients of Section 147 Cr.P.C. has been satisfied proceeded to pass the order dated 6th August, 2014. The Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate the letter dated 16th July, 2008 whereby on receipt of payment the Municipality had no objection to handing over of possession of the subject property to Sudipta and Blackberry herein. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Municipality to W.P. No.14189 (W) of 2012 there was no mention of a common passage.
In fact, in 2007 the contention of Gujarat Composite was rejected and in the affidavit filed by Orbit, lands belonging to Sree Ram Silk and Rilaxon have been shown in the premises of Blackberry and as the road is shown to cut across the said property no weightage ought to have been given thereto. It has been admitted by Orbit in its affidavit that the common passage in respect of which there exists a dispute is now disclosed by the Municipality as a Municipal road. Konnagar Municipality in its affidavit filed has sought to allege that certain Dag numbers in the title deed were wrongly incorporated as the same comprises in a public road and has sought that the wrong recordings be corrected.
In fact, receipts have been issued by the Municipality in 1960-61 in favour of the company (in liquidation). Therefore, the Municipality is challenging its own records. The real reason for insisting on treatment of the property of Blackberry as a Municipal road is access by Orbit to G.T. Road, as it is a developer and must give a respectable address for its project to take of. The two documents which form the basis of the order of the Executive Magistrate are dated 30th July, 2014 and 15th August, 2014 issued by the Chairman, Konnagar Municipality and the S.I. Uttarpara, P.S. Hooghly respectively.
While in the letter dated 30th July, 2014 the Chairman has alleged that the local people and vendees so also the company used the municipal road for ingress and egress purpose and by a letter of 2012 September the company (in liquidation) permitted user of the said road and in case, any obstruction is caused the service of fire and emergency vehicles like Ambulance, Fire Brigade will be affected which will lead to a dangerous situation. Similarly, the letter dated 15th August, 2014 speaks of a long pending dispute between Orbit and Sudipta. It is after purchase of the property in 2011 that Sudipta blocked the gates. Therefore, the 3 months requirement finds no mention in either the letter dated 30th July, 2014 or 15th August, 2014.
There has been total violation of the principles of natural justice as although the complaint under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was filed by Orbit against Sudipta, Gujarat Composite Ltd. was heard and although it was brought to the notice of the Executive Magistrate that Blackberry would be an interested party no step was taken to serve notice of hearing on it. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa, and D. Venkatasubramaniam and Others Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and Another, .
By continuing to exploit the said pathway, the respondents are seeking to give it a public road character.
It is evident from the letter issued by Orbit that in compliance of the order dated 6th August, 2014 the obstruction has been removed. By setting aside the order dated 6th August, 2014 restitution be directed which the Writ Court in its jurisdiction is empowered to do, as held in 1999 (1) ILR (Cal) 397, AIR (1992) Cal 72 and A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam Represented by Its President etc., .
An issue has been raised that Blackberry is the subsidiary of Sudipta. This is not so. Both are separate and independent legal entities. Therefore, for all the reasons, the order dated 6th August, 2014 be set aside.
In opposing the said application Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the dispute revolves around the 32ft. wide passage which Blackberry has claimed as its property. This issue cannot be decided by the Writ Court. The order dated 6th August, 2014 is also under challenge. For more than 45 years the said piece of land has been used as a common passage which according to the Municipality is a Municipal road. There is no material on record to evidence whose property the said road is. Sudipta the respondent No. 5 before the Trial Court offered 25 lakhs and also agreed to make payment of the Municipal dues and Bank dues. The appeal filed was dismissed. In the MOU between the Municipality and Sudipta one Mr. Jha has signed on behalf of Sudipta. Before the Supreme Court of India Sudipta offered 13.50 Crores. An application was filed by Sudipta before this Court being C.A. No. 708 of 2010 wherein Blackberry was described as co-purchaser and in the order dated 22nd March, 2011 it has been specifically recorded that Blackberry is the 100% subsidiary of Sudipta since 19th July, 2010. The order dated 22nd March, 2011 forms a part of the conveyance deed but this has not been disclosed by Blackberry. There has been tampering with the document annexed by Blackberry. The obstruction was caused by Sudipta, and in the complaint lodged on 29th April, 2013 this was specifically mentioned. The order of 6th August, 2014 directs Sudipta to remove the obstruction. Associates will not mean Blackberry. The order dated 6th August, 2014 has been challenged by Sudipta in a Criminal motion, as no interim order was passed, therefore, recourse to this writ petition has been taken. This fact has also been suppressed from Court.
Blackberry has no locus standi as the obstruction was put by Sudipta, therefore, a complaint was lodged against Sudipta. There is no averment in the writ petition that the obstruction was caused by the petitioner Blackberry. As the complaint was against Sudipta, therefore, the Executive Magistrate by his order has directed removal of such obstruction by Sudipta and Sudipta who was charged with causing of obstruction, has filed a criminal revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nowhere has Sudipta in its revision application stated that the obstruction was put by it and the petitioner Blackberry. It is admitted that such obstruction was put by it and rightly so. In the complaint filed by Orbit, there is no allegation leveled against Blackberry, the petitioner herein. As no obstruction by Blackberry has been pleaded in the writ petition, therefore, there is no violation of natural justice principle nor was there any requirement of issuance of notice to Blackberry. The complaint is dated 29th April, 2013 and is filed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. by the respondent No. 4. The Executive Magistrate gave directions for filing affidavit and filing of documents by Sudipta but no such affidavit or document was filed by Sudipta. The point raised in this writ petition has been raised by Sudipta in criminal revision. Blackberry has knowledge of the order dated 6th August, 2013. Sudipta has not alleged blockade by Blackberry and from the Executive Magistrate''s order, Blackberry was entitled to file a review application or seek recall of order. Criminal revisional application could also have been filed but the said exercise has not been undertaken. Without taking recourse to the proceedings mentioned above, writ jurisdiction has been invoked. In the writ proceedings also there is no mention that the blockade was caused by Blackberry. The materials before the Executive Magistrate was enough to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders.
Another reason for not entertaining this writ petition are the three Title Suits filed by Blackberry. The first suit being T.S.149 of 2014 has been filed by Sudipta and Blackberry. The scheduled property is the combined property of both Sudipta and Blackberry. The plaint has been affirmed by Arvind Jhunjhunwala who has also signed the criminal revision application. FMA 799 of 2014 filed from refusal to grant interim order is pending defective. T.S.217 of 2014 is the second suit filed which has been withdrawn subsequently. The third suit is T.S.219 of 2014 against Rilaxon and Sreeram Silk, both units of Gujarat Composite Ltd. (GCL). Revision applications have been filed from the interim order and the final order passed by the Executive Magistrate. In the first revision application no point of GCL being represented and heard has been taken. In the writ petition also there is no objection raised with regard to GCL. GCL is not a party in the writ petition although allegations have been made against GCL. GCL is a necessary party and for non-joinder of party, this writ petition is bad.
The order dated 6th August, 2014 has been passed on the basis of police report. As the relief sought in the writ petition, overlaps with that sought in the suit and in view of alternative proceedings pending at the instance of Blackberry this application be not entertained. Blackberry has claimed exclusive right in respect of the common passage and unless the said issue is decided, Blackberry cannot be aggrieved by the order passed. That Blackberry and Sudipta are one will be evident from the suits filed. The order dated 6th August, 2014 has been passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. based on the police report, municipal report and complaint. In the event, it is held that Sudipta and Blackberry is one then, this writ petition for forum shopping ought to be dismissed.
In the first criminal revision filed by Sudipta, there is no averment that Blackberry is a co-owner or Blackberry is an obstructer or co-obstructer. Nowhere has Sudipta pleaded that obstruction has been caused by Blackberry. As the complaint was only directed against Sudipta, the order has also been passed against Sudipta. An opportunity was given by order dated 29th Many, 2013 to Sudipta to give details. But, no such detail has been given. Neither Sudipta nor Blackberry can be aggrieved by the order dated 6th August, 2014. Right to use and obstruction to land and water caused was the only issue before the Executive Magistrate. In the first criminal revision filed which has been affirmed by Arvind Jhunjhunwala on behalf of Blackberry and Sudipta, Sudipta had an opportunity to tell Court that Blackberry was a necessary party. C.R.59 of 2013 was admitted on 29th August, 2013 and disposed of on 31st March, 2014. The order dated 6th August, 2014 is based on records. As there is no allegation in the writ petition that Blackberry caused obstruction with Sudipta, therefore, it should not be heard. There is no complaint by Blackberry that it was a necessary or a proper party or it caused obstruction. From the pleading it will appear that both Sudipta and Blackberry is one.
In Paragraph 3(CC) of the writ petition it has been pleaded that Blackberry is a 100% subsidiary of the respondent No. 5, Sudipta. In Paragraph 32 of the writ petition it has been pleaded that Blackberry and Sudipta are separate legal entities and independent of each other. The said is not in keeping with Paragraph 3(cc). At the meeting held on 19th August, 2008 the Official Liquidator handed over possession of the subject premises to Sudipta and it was Ajit Jha, who represented Sudipta. Ajit Jha is the petitioner No. 2 in this writ petition. Therefore, Sudipta and Blackberry is one.
Out of the three suits filed two have been affirmed by Arvind Jhunjhunwala while the third has been affirmed by Ajit Jha. Right of access through the petitioner''s premise is sub-judice in the suit. It is during the pendency of the said suits that this application has been filed. Therefore, the writ is not maintainable in view of the suits filed. The Parcha so also Fort William''s letter gives Orbit the right of access.
Reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh and others, for the proposition that when a declaration of title is sought, a writ petition ought not to be entertained. Mohan Pandey and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and Others, has been relied on for the proposition that during pendency of a civil suit no writ petition be entertained. Before allowing or disallowing access, right to the strip of land has to be decided which the Writ Court is not empowered to decide.
Two private individuals are claiming a right over a strip of land. This claim is sought to be forestalled by this writ petition.
Reliance is placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, , Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti and another Vs. The Alleged Committee of Management, Sri R.J.I. College, Agra and others, , Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and another Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha and others, for the proposition that the relief claimed in the writ petition is similar to that in the civil suits and as relief can be granted by the Civil Court, the writ application be not entertained. No case of police inaction has been made out. The complaint filed by the petitioner Blackberry is dated 13th August, 2014. The contents of the complaint and the pleadings in the writ petition in respect thereof are at a divergence. In the third suit filed before the City Civil Court GCL is not a party. No mandamus has been sought against the police authorities. Relief (m) sought cannot be granted as by order dated 6th August, 2014, no direction has been given to the police.
Reliance is placed on P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, which permits police protection in the event an order or title is established. As no case of police inaction has been pleaded no relief in respect thereof can be granted.
There has been suppression of material fact. In the order passed by Justice I.P. Mukherjee, Blackberry has been described as a co-purchaser. It has also been recorded that Blackberry is the 100% subsidiary of Sudipta and its nominee. As amalgamation and mutation was sought and no step taken in respect thereof by the authorities, W.P.14189 of 2012 was filed and an order was passed on 14th June, 2014.
W.P. 14189 of 2012 was filed both by Blackberry and Sudipta. At the meeting held on 21st June, 2013 Sudipta and Blackberry the petitioner herein were represented jointly by one person. The order passed by the Konnagar Municipality on 21st June, 2013 has not been challenged. A caveat before the Sreerampur Court has been filed jointly by Sudipta and Blackberry the petitioner herein. T.S.149 of 2014 has been filed both by Sudipta and Blackberry the petitioner herein. T.S.217 of 2014 has also been filed jointly by Sudipta and Blackberry. T.S.219 of 2014 has also been filed jointly by Blackberry and Sudipta. The pleadings in this writ petition is common with the pleadings in the criminal revision filed by Sudipta.
On 3rd February, 2014 a complaint was filed with the Officer-in-Charge, Konnagar Police Station through the advocate, who filed it on behalf of both Sudipta and Blackberry. C.R.85 of 2014 though filed by Sudipta has been affirmed by one Arvind Kr. Jhunjhunwala on behalf of Sudipta and Blackberry and he has held himself out to be the authorized representative of both Sudipta and Blackberry.
T.S.149 of 2014 has been verified by Arvind Kr. Jhunjuhnwala while T.S.219 of 2014 has been verified by Ajit Kr. Jha. Arvind Kr. Jhunjhunwala has also affirmed the criminal revision while this writ petition has been affirmed by Ajit Kr. Jha. For all the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is not maintainable.
The writ Court is a Court of equity as held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, and all facts must be disclosed. In case of suppression the writ petition be dismissed. The scope of Article 226 has been expounded in Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, . Reliance is placed on Board of Directors, H.P.T.C. and Another Vs. K.C. Rahi, for the proposition that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula, and there is no natural justice violation in view of Sudipta being heard as both Blackberry and Sudipta is one. For the proposition of alternative remedy reliance is placed on State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Pirthi Chand and another, and Asstt. P.F. Commissioner, Employees'' Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwala and Others, . For all the said reasons this application warrants no order and be dismissed.
Counsel for the Konnagar Municipality submits that it was on the complaint of Orbit against Sudipta that proceedings were initiated. The Municipality was directed to remove the blockade. Such blockade has been removed on 11th August, 2014 prior to filing of the writ petition. The complaint by Blackberry is dated 13th August, 2014 and the writ petition was filed on 20th August, 2014. The order of status quo has been passed on 26th August, 2014. The order of the Executive Magistrate is dated 6th August, 2014. Therefore, this application warrants no order.
The dispute arises over a strip of land which according to the Konnagar Municipality is a public street and according to the petitioner is a path. Reliance is placed on Satya Sundar Ghose Vs. Sailendra Kinkar Pal and Another, and Annamalai Reddi and Others Vs. Abdul Sathar Sahib, .
In reply Counsel for the petitioner submits that Blackberry and Sudipta are co-purchasers and each has a separate juristic entity. Each has a right to proceed and challenge the order dated 6th August, 2014. The deed of conveyance which has demarcated the land has been purchased by Sudipta and Blackberry. The gate which is described as the blockade is in the premise of Blackberry. In the civil proceedings Orbit is not a party and the said suit is not relevant to proceedings under Section 147. The Suit which was filed against Orbit has been withdrawn. There has been no suppression as filing of the suits finds mention in Paragraph 23 of the writ petition. The order passed under Section 147 is to be in Form 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This factor has been overlooked by the Executive Magistrate. The proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. has been violated from start to finish. Not only has the proceedings been jettisoned but the machinery contemplated and modality to be followed has also not been followed. In the complaint filed by Orbit there is no case for Blackberry to answer. The unauthorized pakka structure was the subject matter of complaint. The alternative remedy bogey is not to apply in view of Himmatlal Harilal Mehta Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . It is the fundamental right of the writ petitioner which has been violated. Gulam Abbas''s Case be also considered.
Having considered the submissions of the parties Fort William Company Limited was the owner of the subject premise and when it went into liquidation it was the Official Liquidator who took possession of the said premise. The subject premise was put up for sale and the successful bidder was one Sudipta Traders Pvt. Ltd. Subsequent to sale of the said premise C.A.708 of 2010 was filed wherein Sudipta was an applicant and all that it sought was that the conveyance be executed in the name of its nominee. By order dated 22nd March, 2011 I.P. Mukherjee, J. directed that no separate conveyance would be executed in favour of the purchaser Sudipta and its nominee. There will be one conveyance of the property in favour of the purchaser and its nominee as co-purchaser and the Official Liquidator was directed to join Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd. as co-purchaser and then execute a conveyance.
Based on the aforesaid one deed of conveyance was executed in favour of Sudipta and its co-purchaser, Blackberry herein and on 19th August, 2008 possession was handed over by the Official Liquidator to Sudipta''s representative Mr. Ajit Kr. Jha. Ajit Kr. Jha has also affirmed this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner Blackberry. T.S.219 of 2014 filed by Sudipta and Blackberry before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sreerampore, has also been affirmed by him on behalf of the plaintiffs.
T.S.149 of 2014 has also been filed by Sudipta and Blackberry. The plaint in the said suit has been affirmed by Mr. Arvind Jhunjhunwala on behalf of the plaintiffs. Arvind Jhunjhunwala has affirmed the criminal revision application filed from order dated 6th August, 2014 as an authorized representative of both Sudipta and Blackberry. This was not required as the criminal revision was being filed only by Sudipta to the exclusion of Blackberry.
These facts would not have been relevant if Sudipta and Blackberry were not connected with each other, but the facts are otherwise. In Paragraph 3(CC) of the writ petition it has been pleaded as follows:-
"In the premises, since 19th August, 2008, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 5 have been in exclusive possession of the entirety of 20.952 acres of land situate at and being holding No. 1 and 35, J.L. Sarani, 5, G.T. Road (West) and 6A, G.T. Road (West), Konnagar. The petitioner No. 1 is a subsidiary of the respondent No. 5." 43. This is further borne out from facts set-out in order dated 22nd March, 2011 which is set-out hereunder:-
"....A 100% subsidiary of the applicant was incorporated on 19th July, 2010 by the name of Blackberry Properties Private Limited.
Now, by this application, the applicant wants the conveyance to be executed in favour of its subsidiary as a co-purchaser."
Such prayer was sought by Sudipta the applicant in C.A. 708 of 2010.
Such prayer was allowed. The conveyance was also to be one with no division of property as will be reflected from hereinbelow:-
".....The habendum of the conveyance will remain the same. There will be no provision for a division of the property in C.A. No. 50 of 2011 and then execution of separate conveyances is in favour of the purchaser and his nominee. There will be one conveyance of the property in favour of the purchaser and his nominee as co-purchasers." 46. Although in Paragraph 32 of the writ petition it has been averred that Blackberry and Sudipta are independent entities with independent Board of Directors but besides the said pleading there is no supporting documents to substantiate the pleadings. It is also not known whether independent balance sheets are filed by Blackberry.
In all proceedings except this writ petition the jointness of Blackberry and Sudipta is apparent. The deed of conveyance has been executed in respect of one property and the question of division of property was left to Sudipta and Blackberry.
The order dated 6th August, 2014 has been challenged by Sudipta by filing a Criminal Revision application. Such application is pending. On a comparison of the grounds, it is seen that some of the grounds taken in the Criminal Revision application and the writ petition are same.
Blackberry is the 100% subsidiary of Sudipta and was incorporated in July, 2010. No memorandum of Association or Articles of Association of either Blackberry or Sudipta has been disclosed by the petitioner Blackberry to establish that the two entities are independent or separate legal entities. All decisions of its 100% subsidiary, i.e., Blackberry will be taken by Sudipta and in such a situation especially when no balance sheets, profit and loss account have been disclosed, there is a tendency to ignore the separate legal entity of the various companies within a group and to look instead at the economic entity of the whole group. This is more so when the holding company owns all the shares of the subsidiary, so much so that it can control every movement of the subsidiary. The subsidiary is bound hand and foot to the parent company and must do just what the parent company says.
Although in passing reference was made by the petitioner''s Counsel to 1897 Appeal Cases 22 (Saloman Vs. Saloman and Co.) there is no doubt that Blackberry and Sudipta are two separate legal entities but the control by the Holding company of the subsidiary by virtue of the share-holding leads to the presumption that a subsidiary will act as per the wishes of the Holding company and unless such presumption is rebutted, it would be proper to treat the holding company and the subsidiary as a single unit. The control by the holding company over the subsidiary by virtue of the 100% shares held by Sudipta in Blackberry will raise this presumption.
In fact, before the order dated 6th August, 2014 was passed, on 29th May, 2013 an interim order was passed directing Sudipta and Orbit not to make construction on the said road and status quo was to be maintained. Sudipta was represented and directed to submit documents namely,
i) Deed of conveyance between Official Liquidator and Sudipta and Blackberry.
ii) Map prepared by Official Liquidator.
iii) Details of iron gate.
This was based on the submissions made by Counsel for Sudipta, one of them being that the 20ft wide road shown in schedule was possessed by Blackberry, the petitioner.
In spite of the aforesaid no step was taken by Sudipta to produce the documents, in spite of Sudipta and Blackberry being co-purchasers, under the Deed of Conveyance executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of both.
In fact, from the order dated 29th May, 2013 a Criminal Revision application was filed by Sudipta. It was not required to do so in view of its submission on 29th May, 2013 before the Executive Magistrate which reads as follows:-
"Ld. Advocate for Ops submits
(i) that the same matter is sub-judice in the Hon. High Court of Calcutta
She is directed to put up copy of writ petition.
Petitioners submit that no order is pending before High Court.
(ii) That ''Anumoti'' of egress/ingress must be given by proprietor Fort William as per ROR
(iii) As per Schedule of Lease Deed ''Dt. 14.12.2007'' Leased Property has Joogi Lane to North Area of Fort William Co. to the East,.......Kacha Rd and AK Banerjee St to South, Pearabagan Lane to West. Hence the raw material of Rilaxon and Orbit can be brought in through Joogi Lane. Copy to be submitted by Ops.
(iv) Deed of Conveyance between Official Liquidator on one side and Sudipta Traders and Blackberry on the other side.
(v) The map proposed by Official Liquidator does not mention common passage. Ops directed to submit copy of same.
(vi) Dag No. 9680 pertaining to the entire 11 Acres including disputed road.
(vii) The disputed road has no specific RS and LR Dag No.
(viii) 20-ft wide road shown in schedule named in pt (iii) above is possessed by Blackberry Properties Pvt. Ltd.
(ix) Ops directed to put up details pertaining to iron gate."
The order of status quo dated 29th May, 2013, if at all, affected Blackberry''s right, in case Blackberry''s case is to be accepted but even then it was Sudipta who filed a Criminal Revision and not Blackberry and rightly so. Such order was suffered by Blackberry till 6th August 2014 without objection. The Criminal Revision application from order dated 6th August, 2014 has also been filed by Sudipta and again rightly so as it is the holding company of Blackberry, its subsidiary, having 100% share-holding in its subsidiary.
In view of the aforesaid this application merits no order and is dismissed.
It is made clear that it is only on the issue of Blackberry being a subsidiary of the holding company, Sudipta, that this writ petition has been dismissed and the merits of the case has not been considered.
Later:
Interim order passed stands vacated.
Counsel for the petitioners seeks continuance of the interim order of status quo. The said prayer is considered and rejected.