CESC LIMITED v. ASHOKA MANUFACTURING LIMITED & ORS.
APOT/353/2015 · 2026-04-16
Arijit Banerjee, Biswaroop Chowdhury
body2015
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 1011 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 1011 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
OD 2
ORDER SHEET APOT/353/2015 WITH WPO/440/2013 IA NO: GA/1/2015 (Old No:GA/3378/2015) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE
CESC LIMITED VS ASHOKA MANUFACTURING LIMITED & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date: 16th April, 2026.
Appearance: Mr. Subir Sanyal, Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Sumouli Sarkar, Adv. …for the petitioner
Ms. Vrinda Kedia, Adv. …for the respondents
The Court: Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the records. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 7, 2015, passed by a learned Judge of this Court, whereby W.P. No.440 of 2013, being a writ petition filed by the respondents herein was disposed of by passing an order in terms of prayers (a) and (e) of the writ petition. The said prayers read as follows:
2
“(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus to issue commanding the respondents to forthwith provide separate electricity connection and supply electricity to the petitioner No.1 on the basis of the petitioner No.1’s applications being Form No.72270612598 submitted on 19th July, 2012 and Form No.39854298971 submitted on 19th July, 2012; (e) Direction upon the respondents to forthwith withdraw the notice dated 1st August, 2012 and provide separate electricity connection as per the applications of the petitioner No.1 being Form No.72270612598 submitted on 19th July, 2012 and Form No.39854298971 submitted on 19th July, 2012;” Being aggrieved, the present appeal was filed by CESC Limited. Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners says, on instruction, that the writ petitioners are happy with the existing mode of supply that is there at the concerned premises and they are no more pressing for separate low tension line. In other words, they are not interested to press prayers (a) and (e) of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to keep this appeal pending. The appeal and the connected applications, accordingly stand disposed of. Written instruction filed today be kept with the records.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)
B.Pal/SP