w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Suman Saha v/s Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SAHA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA1991PTC012267

Company & Directors' Information:- ANDAMAN SAHA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999AN2017PTC005380

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SAHA LTD [Active] CIN = U36920WB1933PLC007695

Company & Directors' Information:- B N SAHA CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U12000WB1938PTC009498

    WP No. 163 of 2018

    Decided On, 08 August 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

    For the Petitioner: K.M.B. Jayapal, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.K. Mandal, Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 26th July, 2018 passed by the Designated Officer, South Andaman District being annexure P 12 to the writ petition. By the order impugned the Designated Officer being respondent No.3 herein in exercise of his power under section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has cancelled with immediate effect the licence vide No. 12915101000499 dated 29th July 2015 issued in favour of Shri. Suman Saha, S/o Late Sambu Nath Saha, Proprietor M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall situated at Junglighat, Port Blair. It is the petitioner's case that he is carrying on a business of bake house and sweet stall at Junglighat under the name and style "M/s Calcutta Sweet Stall". In order to run such business the writ petitioner obtained license under Food Safety Act, 2006 and the licensing authority issued a licence on 29th July, 2015. The license was for a period from 29th July, 2015 to 28th July, 2020. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the license at page 24 of the writ petition (Annexure P 1) which shows "This license is valid from 29th July 2015 to 28th July 2020." In order to establish the said business the petitioner hired a room from its recorded owner on monthly rental basis which stands on survey No. 901/2 measuring an area of 77.50 sq.mtr. situated at Junglighat village under Port Blair Tehsil, District of South Andaman. A tenancy agreement was executed by and between one M. Hamid in his capacity as landlord and the writ petitioner being tenant therein. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that on the strength of the said tenancy agreement and the tenancy created thereunder in respect of the premises in question, the writ petitioner was granted license by the authority concerned and the said tenancy was for a limited period as mentioned in said agreement but contains a clause that the same may be extended and or terminated mutually by the parties. It is further specific case of the writ petitioner that after the schedule time limit the landlord renewed the tenancy by accepting rent from the tenant every month and the petitioner is carrying on business in the said premises. Such rent is being paid by tenant to his landlord through account payee cheques and the landlord has encashed such cheques in order to accept the monthly rental. To substantiate such statement the petitioner has annexed a receipt issued by his landlord for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- though in the petition it has been mentioned Rs. 8,00,000/- as security deposit and he has annexed statement of account for the period from 1st January, 2017 to 31st March, 2017, 16th February, 2017 to 30th April, 2017, 30th November, 2017 to 27th December, 2017 and 13th July, 2018 to 3rd August, 2018 to show that he paid rent to his landlord for the tenancy months; he also paid electricity charges for the said premises.

2. On 1st December, 2017 an order was passed by Joint Commissioner (FS) Adjudicating Officer, South Andaman District vide memo being F.No.SA/LIC/2015/536 where-from it appears that a complaint was made by the added respondent to the effect that the licensing authority illegally issued the license dated 29th July, 2015 in favour of the petitioner with the validity up to 28th July, 2020 to conduct business of bake house and the sweet stall in the name and style of "M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall", Junglighat, Port Blair. In the said order it has been mentioned that both parties were heard and documents submitted by Shri. Suman Saha showing that he had a tenancy agreement in respect of the premises wherefrom he is running the business, was to expire on 14th March, 2016 and the landlord has entered into a new agreement with the added respondent, who on the basis thereof applied for a new license. According to the said Joint Commissioner two licenses cannot be given to a single shop in favour of two persons, and on expiry of tenancy agreement, the license which was issued on 29th July, 2015, has been cancelled with immediate effect. Writ petition discloses that after such complaint was made, the petitioner challenged the said order in a writ petition being WP No. 447 of 2017 and the order was set aside by this Hon'ble Court holding that the impugned order was without jurisdiction. While disposing of the said writ petition this court on the earlier occasion directed the Designated Officer to take a fresh decision in the matter uninfluenced by anything in the order impugned which was set aside. The Designated Officer was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other concerned parties as the officer might deem necessary and was directed to take a reasoned decision within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order. However, the Designated Officer and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the premises in question. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 8th December, 2017 the writ petitioner filed a civil suit being OS No. 106 of 2017 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Port Blair. The added respondent is a party defendant in the said suit. Time to time parties were heard, and, ultimately, the Civil Court passed an order on 29th December, 2017 disposing of temporary injunction application of the plaintiff holding, inter alia, that although the defendant No.2 challenged each and every documents of the plaintiff, but the matter requires to be decided on full-fledged trial. The learned Court also observed that "admittedly the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. The Court is under obligation to protect the possession. At this stage the nature of possession can't be determined.

3. So, the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property should be protected by passing temporary injunction order.

4. From the reasons as mentioned herein above at this stage it is found that the plaintiff has made out a good prima facie case. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and if the temporary injunction is not granted then the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

5. Prior to taking departure from the discussion it is stated here that at this stage this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff Suman Saha is the tenant over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has been possessing the suit schedule property and carrying business under name and style "M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall" at junglighat."

6. The learned Civil Court restrained the defendants from disturbing the smooth functioning of the business by the plaintiff, Shri Suman Saha, under the name and style "M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall" on the tenanted suit schedule property (shop rooms measuring carpet/plinth area of 41 x 15 feet at ground floor and first floor in the RCC building standing over survey no. 901/2 measuring area 77.50 hectares situated at village Junglighat under Port Blair Tehsil, District of South Andaman under the name and style "M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall at Junglighat") in any manner what so ever till disposal of the suit.

7. It is reported by Mr. Jayapal that the civil proceeding is pending and the injunction passed therein by the court is subsisting as on date. Such statement of Mr. Jayapal is not disputed. On 4th January, 2018 the Designated Officer, South Andaman District issued a show cause notice under Section 32 (3) of the said Act. By the said notice the petitioner was directed to file reply within 14 days and to produce proof of possession of the said premises. Writ petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the license issued in his favour should not be cancelled for noncompliance of Food Safety and Standard Rules and Regulations 2011. In reply to such show cause the petitioner on the self-same day i.e. on 4th January, 2018 made a detailed representation before the Designated Officer wherein he specifically mentioned that he is in possession over the said land; he filed a suit wherein the learned Civil Court passed an order of injunction allowing his application for temporary injunction whereby defendants were restrained from interfering with his possession and business in the suit premises; and that the learned Civil Court observed upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of their averments in their respective pleadings that writ petitioner is in possession of the suit premises.

8. On 15th January, 2018 the Designated Officer passed an order being Order No. 2 thereby cancelling the petitioner's license to business with immediate effect. However, in the said order it was categorically mentioned "Shri Suman Saha's food business activities and peaceful possession of the premises will not be disturbed till the final outcome of Civil Suit being OS No. 106/2017 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division-I at Port Blair. The writ petitioner has drawn my attention to another order of this Court passed on 15th June, 2018 in WP No. 044 of 2018 passed by one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court where the subject matter of challenge was order no.2 dated 17th January, 2018 (correct date is 15th January, 2018 passed by the Designated Officer). By the said order the Hon'ble Judge set aside the aforesaid order No.2 and the Designated Officer was directed to comply with the order dated 8th December, 2017 passed in WP No. 447 of 2017 read with the observation made in the said order dated 15th June 2018. In the said order of 15th June, 2018 it was specified that the authority must adhere to the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as authority never challenged the order dated 8th December, 2017 passed in WP No. 447 of 2017 by which the authority was directed to give an opportunity of hearing.

9. In the instant case the Designated Officer while issuing the final order cancelling the petitioner's business license under order No.13 dated 26th July, 2018 has come to a conclusion that Shri. Suman Saha admitted that presently he is not having any proof of possession of his business premises with him and he failed to produce proof of possession of his food business premises. Therefore, the said officer cancelled license with immediate effect. Peculiar enough to note that the said Designated Officer himself took note of the Civil Court's order of injunction and held that business activities and peaceful possession of the premises in question would not be disturbed till the final outcome of the civil suit being OS No. 106 of 2017 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division-I at Port Blair. How can an officer take a complete volte-face although it is on record before him that the petitioner duly replied his show cause notice on 4th January, 2018 and on consideration of such notice he had the knowledge of the civil proceedings and injunction passed therein. Therefore, it is duty of the officer concerned to ascertain from the complainant/added respondent as to whether the order of injunction which was passed on 29th December, 2017 is still subsisting between the parties or not. On comparison of the order dated 15th January, 2018 and 26th July, 2018 passed by the self-same statutory authority it appears before this Court that it is rather surprising as to how an officer of some responsibility can overlook his own order passed earlier which he is duty bound to follow in the subsequent order unless contrary is shown and proved. The authority has passed order in exercise of the powers given to him under Section 32 of the said Act which among others authorises him to cancel the license on the ground of petitioner's failure to comply with the improvement notice. In the earlier order dated 15th January, 2018 and also in the order dated 4th January, 2018 the Designated Officer pointed out that what the writ petitioner is required to do he is to produce proof of possession of the premises in question. According to Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulation, 2011 clause 9 of annexure 2 only proof of possession of premises (sale deed/rent agreement/electricity bill etc) is required.

10. Having regard to such requirement under the regulation which has been framed under the Act commonly known as Regulations, 2011, the authority only requires to see whether he is in possession of the premises wherefrom he is carrying on the business and if any dispute arises with regard to the legality of such possession the authority ought to relegate the parties before competent forum for resolving the dispute with regard to the possession. In the present case the petitioner produced agreement and rent receipts even after lapse of the terms of agreement and more so he is protected by an order of temporary injunction where the complainant is a party suffering the order of injunction in respect of the suit premises. Therefore, acts done by the authority appears to be mala fide in nature and such mala fide cannot be indulged. In my view what the authority in the impugned improvement notice was to see whether the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question or not and in this case there are sufficient materials in the writ petition disclosed by the petitioner which were also disclosed before the authority to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises and, therefore, the action taken by the authority appears to be improper exercise of the power under Section 32 of the said Act which amounts to assuming a jurisdiction not vested with it under the law and this Court has ample power to set aside such unauthorised exercise of power. Therefore, impugned order being order No. 13 dated 26th July, 2018 issued by the Designated Officer, South Andaman District is liable to be set aside.

11. Both Mr. S.K Mandal appearing for the authority and Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar appearing for the added respondent raised a point that the order passed under Section 32 is an order appealable before the Commissioner. According to them against an order passed under Section 32 an appeal lies to the Commissioner. According to the respondents the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is an alternative remedy prescribed under the act itself. On perusal of Sub-Section 4 of Section 32 it appears that when a party is aggrieved by:

a) ...

b) ...

c) cancellation or suspension or revocation of license under this Act, may appeal to the Commissioner of Food Safety whose decision thereon, shall be final.

12. If this is the position that Commissioner of Food Safety is the appellate authority, it is not understood as to why the impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Officer also in his capacity as Joint Commissioner. If appellate authority itself has assumed jurisdiction over the matter, respondents argument that appeal lies before the Commissioner has no meaning. Therefore, in this context it can be said that the Joint Commissioner disregarding order earlier passed by this Court has usurped the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officer which cannot be permitted under any circumstances and only considering such instance the argument made by the respondents that writ petition is ba

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rred by alternative remedy of appeal, is to be thrown out. Having regard to the judgement cited by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar in the case of Authrised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another v. Mathew K.C decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 30th January 2018 reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 676 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and other v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in 2014 Vol 1 SCC 603 has got no manner of application and I refrain myself from dealing with those decisions in the fact situation of the present case. Therefore, the judgements which have been referred to by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar on behalf of the added respondent has got no manner of application in the present case having regard to the nature of the order impugned and the authority exercised by the respondent No. 3. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore the impugned order being order No. 13 dated 26th July, 2018 issued by the Designated Officer, South Andaman District cannot survive in the eye of law, and, is, accordingly, set aside. However, since the respondents were not called upon to use affidavits, any allegations made in the writ petition against them shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Later 14. Prayer for stay of operation of this order has been made by the learned Government Pleader, but having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner's advocate Mr. Jayapal that the authorities might implement their order by ousting the petitioner from his possession of the shop, considering the gravity of the situation that operation of stay might indulge some one to make infructuous the courts' order, prayer for stay is refused.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-09-2020 Emirates Airlines Versus Srikanta Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2020 Manoj Kumar Saha @ Manoj Kumar Sah Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise & Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Pushpak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Goutam Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Bidyut Kumar Saha Versus Tapa Saha High Court of Tripura
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo, West Bengal Versus IPSITA Saha, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo Versus IPSITA Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Neeta Saha, Member of Suspended Board of Palm Developers Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Versus Ram Niwas Gupta (Proprietor of Ram Niwas Gupta & sons), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Kaushik Saha Versus The Genaral Manager, SBI & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Versus On Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-02-2020 Lipika Dey (Saha) Versus Babul Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Bijali Saha & Another Versus Riman Saha High Court of Tripura
03-02-2020 Debasish Saha Versus Godrej Properties Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Pankaj Behari Saha V/S The State of Tripura, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
17-01-2020 Monotosh Saha Versus Sanjit Thakurata & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-01-2020 Bibhas Saha & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-01-2020 Debasish Saha & Others Versus Godrej Properties Limited & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-11-2019 Santi Swaasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Iti Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Debdas Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Saha Versus UCO Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-09-2019 Goutam Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-09-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-09-2019 Shibani Saha & Another Versus Subhasish Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2019 M/s. Aridipa Enterprise Rep. by its partner, Soma Basu Versus Partha Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2019 M/s. Bose Enterprise Rep. by Rana Basu & Another Versus Chayanika Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-08-2019 Jagannath Saha @ Rinku Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-08-2019 Bikash Kr. Saha Versus The Branch Manager, Muragachha, Dharmada CCC West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-08-2019 Sukanta Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-07-2019 Kishori Mohan Sinha alias Singha Versus Kumaresh Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2019 Debabrata Dutta Versus Joy Gopal Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2019 Abir Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-07-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manabendra Saha Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-07-2019 Kabita Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-07-2019 Union of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Others Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha & Another Supreme Court of India
01-07-2019 Ranjit Kumar Sarkar Versus Pew Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2019 Sribash Chandra Saha & Others Versus Rubber Board & Others High Court of Tripura
29-05-2019 Sushmita Saha Versus M/s. Amarpali Property Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Nandini Bala Saha Versus Dr. M. Pramanik & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-05-2019 Sanjukta Saha & Others Versus Chandana Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-05-2019 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-04-2019 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. DLF Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2019 M/s. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Soumen Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-04-2019 Bhajan Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
29-03-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Susmita Saha High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Tapas Dey Versus Aronjit Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-03-2019 Bhelupada Saha @ Velupada Saha Versus Prahallad Ghosh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-02-2019 Dr. Prasanta Saha Versus Pritam Sarkar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2019 The Station Master, Berhampore Court Station P.O. & P.S. & Others Versus Aditya Kumar Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2019 Sumit Kumar Saha Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-01-2019 Sangita Saha Versus Abhijit Saha & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2019 Dipak Kumar Saha Versus Bandhan Bild Con. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2019 Bhajan Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2019 Partha Sarathi Saha (Proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Automobiles) Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Delhi
28-11-2018 Sanjib Saha & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2018 Sanjoy Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-11-2018 Biltu Saha & Others Versus The Union of India, Through the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-10-2018 Soma Saha Versus Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd. High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2018 Mandira Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-09-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Uttam Kr. Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
19-09-2018 Jayanta Saha, Kolkata Versus Dcit, Circle - 25, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
18-09-2018 Mobile Store Versus Subal Saha & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
14-09-2018 Kamal Saha Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-09-2018 Anand Kumar Saraogi & Another Versus Amitamoyee Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-08-2018 Milon Roy Chowdhury Versus Ashis Kumar Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-08-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Ashim Kumar Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-08-2018 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Saha Versus Ombir Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2018 Archana Roy (Saha) & Others Versus Sanjib Bhattacharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-07-2018 Mani Saha Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospital & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2018 Paramita Saha (Nandi) Versus Birangshu Narayan Dash Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Debabrata Saha Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dulali Saha & Others High Court of Tripura
03-07-2018 Sukumar Sutradhar & Another Versus Sanjoy Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-06-2018 Sanjib Ratan Saha Versus The Institute of Cost Accountant of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-06-2018 Dr. Arindam Butt Versus Manoj Kumar Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-06-2018 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus Susmita Bhowmik & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-05-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihir Lal Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-05-2018 Manager, Bank of Baroda Jodhpur Park Branch Versus Susanta Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-04-2018 Gopal Saha Versus Anil Roy Chowdhury & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-04-2018 Dr. Anirban Jana, Medical Officer, Kasturi District Hospital Versus Kamal Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2018 Sunipa Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
19-03-2018 Sima Saha Versus Prabir Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
15-03-2018 Rama Saha Versus M/s. Dream Dwellings & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-02-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sumit Kumar Saha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-02-2018 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. D.L.F. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-02-2018 Union of India Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha High Court of Gauhati
02-02-2018 Dr. Kunal Saha & Another Versus Principal Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-01-2018 Chittaranjan Saha & Others Versus Arun Kumar Das High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-01-2018 Tapati Saha & Others Versus Sukumar Dutta & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-01-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihirlal Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2018 Shanti Dey @ Santi Dey Versus Sri Suvodeep Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-12-2017 Tapas Kumar Saha Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2017 Ashis Kanti Saha Versus The Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, Represented by its Chairman, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
04-12-2017 Bijoli Rani Saha @ Bijali Saha Versus Prabal Basak High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-11-2017 Chhana Rani Saha Versus Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal Supreme Court of India
14-11-2017 Sayed Ekram Saha & Others Versus Debendra Kumar Pati & Others High Court of Orissa