Calcutta High CourtThe Baranagore Jute Factory Plc vs Sri Chaitan Chowdhary & Anr on 4 March, 2009Author:Maharaj SinhaBench:Maharaj SinhaIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        ORIGINAL SIDE

                     CA NO. 150 OF 2009
                     CA NO. 126 OF 2005
                        Connected with
                       CP NO. 2 OF 1987
                      In the matter of:
              THE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC.
                              AND
                SRI CHAITAN CHOWDHARY & ANR.

                      CA NO. 178 OF 2009
                      CA NO. 150 OF 2009
                        Connected with
                       CP NO. 2 OF 1987
               THE BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC
                              AND
                   CHAITAN CHOWDHURY & ORS.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. P.C. Sen, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Utpal Bose, Adv.,
Mr. Rajratana Sen, Adv.
                      ...For Chaitan Chowdhury.

Mr.   S. Pal, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.   L.C. Behani, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.   I. P. Mukherjee, Adv.,
Mr.   N.C. Behani, Adv.
           ...For the applicant for addition of party.

Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Adv.,
Mr. Bajrang Manot, Adv.
                        ...For unsecured creditors.

Mr. Subhransu Ganguly, Adv.
                    ...For Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Jayjit Ganguly, Adv.
                     ...For Namokar Vjinimay P. Ltd.
                                      2




BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA.DATE: 4 MARCH 2009.The Court:- After hearing the submissions of learned
Senior Counsel Mr. P.C.Sen and Mr. S. Pal, appearing in
support of their respective applications, CA No. 150 of
2009, CA No. 178 of 2009 and the submissions of learned
Counsel Mrs. Manju Agarwal, appearing for the unsecured
creditors and learned Advocate Mr. Subhransu Ganguly, for
Yashdeep     Trexim   Pvt.   Ltd.,       both    the   applications    are
adjourned for a period of two weeks for the time being.However,      Mr.     Pal     has     taken        the   point   of
maintainability of the application of Mr. Sen's client at
this stage as the time to make the deposit in terms of
the order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of
Justice in London has expired.Mr.    Sen,     however,       says       that     the   point   of
maintainability cannot be raised at this stage by Mr. Pal
as Mr. Pal's client, Damodar Prosad Bhattar has made the
application for his addition to the present proceeding
and    the    application         does    not     even     question    the
maintainability        or     the        entertainability       of     the
application of Mr. Sen's clients, Chaitan Chowdhury and
Ridh Karan Rakecha at this stage.3However, the question raised on the maintainability
or the entertainability of the above application is kept
open.All parties are to act on a Xerox signed copy of
this order on the usual undertakings.[MAHARAJ SINHA, J.]


snn.