Subhendra Dutta Vs Employees State Insurance Corp. & 3 Ors.

Meghalaya High Court At Shillong 30 Oct 2024 Writ Petition (C) No. 391 Of 2024 (2024) 10 MEG CK 0030
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition (C) No. 391 Of 2024

Hon'ble Bench

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

Advocates

D. Hynniewta, B. Khongthaw

Judgement Text

Translate:

H. S. Thangkhiew, J

1. Heard Mr. D. Hynniewta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. B. Khongthaw, learned counsel is present and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, so no further notice is called for upon these respondents.

4. Petitioner to take steps for issuance of notice upon the respondents No. 3 and 4 within three days.

5. Mr. D. Hynniewta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, by order dated 22.10.2024, has issued a Prohibitory Order against the respondent No. 4, one Shri. Sukhendu Dutta, who is a Proprietor of M/s Stay In Guest House situated at Keating Road. However, he submits that though the proceedings are for recovery of dues from the said respondent No. 4, the joint account of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 which is in connection with another business venture namely Hotel Sapphire has been attached and the due amount of Rs.4,43,558/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand and Five Hundred Fifty-Eight) only is being sought to be recovered from the said account. He submits that there being no connection between the said proceedings against the respondent No. 4/Proprietor of M/s Stay In Guest House with the petitioner, he prays that some protection be given at this stage.

6. Ms. B. Khongthaw, learned counsel for the respondent submits that from the Prohibitory Order, it appears that the same is directed against the respondent No.4, and as such, if that is the case, the petitioner is nowhere aggrieved, and there is no necessity for passing any interim orders.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials on record, and if the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct, that the Account No. as given in Paragraph – 13 of the writ petition thereof, is the joint account of the firm, it is provided that till the next date, no recovery shall be made from this account and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are at liberty to proceed against the respondent No. 4 in accordance with law.

8. List this matter on 19th November, 2024 for instructions/affidavit.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More