WP(C)/16/2007 of Alchemist Ltd and Anr Vs State Bank Of Sikkim and Ors on 17 September 2007

11--SerialDateOffice Note as toNo. ofOrderofOrderOrder with Signatureaction (if any)takenonOrder02.17.9.07Present: Mr. P.C. Sen and Mr. Ranjan Deb,Senior Advocates with Mr. ArijitBaneljee, Mr. Rohitendra Ch. Deb,Bar-at-Law, Mr. B.P. Subba and Mr.Kirit Zaveri, Advocates for thePetitioners.Mr.S.P.Wangdi, Advocate Generalwith Mr. J.B. Pradhan and MI.. KarmaThinlay, Government Advocates for theState-RespondentsThisisawritpetitionat the initial stage andtoda.y is the first day when the case has beenpresented.However, the matter has been argued atlength since the very admission of a ihrit petitionof the present na.ture is fran8ht wiconsequences, and those consequences woulvisit, in this case, no less an organization than thState Bank of Sikhim itself.Thewritpetitioner Alchemist is desirouultimately of becoming a strategic partner of thState Bank of Sikkim. .Itappearstobe an extremely start]inproposition, unhaown anywhere else in India fo1,----J`11+I+.1.su lulls, ]|.I |[sal.u L.u c...Lj, vL u-Le oLLLef I+a:E±eF^a±H-e_banks which ha.ve now existed as such for a long /pr, I

I /'' appreciablyabove50°/o. Some36%sharesofthe '!

i}/ serialNo.ofOrderDateofOrderOrder with Signaturefuture partner of the bank and its business andstandings.After the team returned to Sikkim, nothingfurther happened. The next inportant document,which is the most inportant document chaJJ.engedby the wit petitioner in this wit petition, wasthereafter. written about a year later, on the 23rdday of F`ebruary 2006. It is a chort letter of about7-8 lines stating simply that the bank waswithdrawing from the earlier plan of strategicpartnership as the State Government of Sikhimhad not approved the bank's recommendation.Thewritpetitionerhadfiledawritin the1 IIIIHich Court of the Punjab & Haryana. That writpetition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. AnSLP was preferred to the Supreme Court of Indiaand that Court was pleased to pass on the 4th dayof December 2006 an order allowing filing ofcounter affidavit and restraining till the ne2ct dayof hearing creation of any 3rd party interest inrespect of the shares. A

i__-_ IT`

Office Note as toaction(ifany) ItakenonOrder I

e

Office Note as toaction(ifany)SerialDateNo. ofOrderofOrderOrder with Signaturetaken on Orderways, which ways can perhaps be adopted wiimpunity by private businessmen.AccordingtoMr.Sen,thecryptic withdrawof 23.2.2006 was not informed by reason. Thwrit petitioner was not taken into confidence bthe bank. No hearing was given. Nothing iknown by the writ petitioner as to why, or if at all,the State Government refiised to grant sanction.No oppchurity was given to the Tndt petitioner totry and to persuade these authorities to go aheadwith the agreement or to review its decision ofdropping the partnership proposal altogether.AccordingtoMr.Sen,theseare,in thepresent state of the law, all sound and good points\for entertainment of the ihndt petition and callingfor an answer both from the State of Sikkim andtheStateBankofSikkim.Onbehalfofthesetwoauthorities,theleaned Advocate General has argued the case andhe has submitted that the case should bedismissedinlimine.

I,` I

J prft-

a

cal.e is needed on subsequent days than on the o0