Calcutta High Court
Hindusthan National Glass And … vs Amit Das And Others on 7 July, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IA NO. GA/1/2026
IN
CS/40/2026
HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED
VS.
AMIT DAS AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 7th July, 2026.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv., Mr. Shiv Ratan Kakrania, Adv. Mr. Tanuj Kakrania, Adv.
Ms. Kiran Sharma, Adv., Ms. Shreya Goenka, Adv., Ms. Surabhi Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Shadma Manzar, Adv.
For plainitiff
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Biswaroop Acharya, Adv.Ms. Neelanjana Ghorui, Adv., Ms. Anusmita Bhattacharya, Adv.
For defendant no.1
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr, Adv., Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv., Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
For defendant no.2
Mr. S. N. Mookerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Chaddha, Adv., Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala, Adv.,
Ms. Yamini Mookherjee, Mr. Arjun Ray, Adv., Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
For defendant no.3
Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv., Mr. Pujan Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Soumabho Ghosh, Adv., For defendant no.4
Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puspal Chakroborty, Adv.
, Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv.,Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Adv., Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv.
For respondent nos.5,6,7 and 8
Mr. Jishnu Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikram Wadehra, Adv., Mr. Yubaraj Bhattacharyya, Adv., Ms. Aasia
Hasan, Adv. Ms. Akansha Yadav, Adv.
For defendant/respondent no.9
Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharyya, Adv., Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, Sr.Public Prosecutor,
Ms. Anupriya Sengupta,Adv.
For SFIO
Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Subhendu Bandopadhyay, Adv.
For respondent no.15.
Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Debtanay Banerjee, Adv.
For respondent no.17
Mr. Arnab Basu Mullick, Adv.
For the respondent No.19.
Mr. Debashis Saha, Adv., Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Adv., Miss Sucheta Pal, Adv.
Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar, Adv.
For SBI Funds Management Limited (defendant no.31)
Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Adv.
2
For P.F. Authorities (defendant no.36)
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yadunath Bhargavan, Adv., Ms. Zairak Hussain, Adv.
For intervenor in IA GA NO. 4 OF 2026
The Court : Argument on behalf of the respondent no.2 is commenced
and concluded.
In course of the argument, the learned senior advocate representing the
said respondent has drawn the attention of the court to various documents
including the advice said to have been given by the learned advocate for filing
the suit to demonstrate that there is no allegation as against the said
respondent contained either in the plaint or in the application.
It is the case of the respondent no.2 who is incidentally the promoter of
the plaintiff company, its director and also the trustee on exempted trust fund
that there is no allegation that the money required to be deducted from the
employees, staff and workers of the plaintiff company along with the employers’
contribution was not deposited with the trust fund. There is also no allegation
that the employees, who had superannuated or in the case where their family
members became entitled to the terminal benefits were not paid so. The
resolution plan, so far as the provisions contained therein on being approved
cannot be further questioned in a collateral proceeding unless an appeal has
been preferred against the same. In the instant case the plaintiff has concealed
the fact that an appeal challenging the acceptance of the resolution has been
filed by the erstwhile management of the plaintiff company including the
respondent no. 2 which is now pending before the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal, (in short, NCLAT) .
It is also the case of the respondent that at the present pursuant to the
3
First Information Report (in short, FIR) having been lodged, there are two
agencies; one who under the statute pursuant to the FIR is entrusted to
investigate and the other in terms of the order dated 16 th June, 2026 as
corrected by the order dated 15th June, 2026.
There may be a conflict in the process of investigation. Although, the
respondent no. 2 is not feared to face the investigating agencies yet the part of
the order directing Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short, SFIO) to carry
out the investigation should be detected for such reason.
The respondent no.2 also draws attention to the averment in the plaint
and the reliefs also to show that the plaintiff never came before the court for
protecting the interest of the employees but to shield any liability that may
have been fastened to the plaintiff pursuant to the take-over.
It is also the case of the respondent no.2 that despite specific direction in
the order dated 16th June, 2026 the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rule 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC) has not been complied
with. On that ground alone, the ex parte ad interim order is required to be
vacated.
The PF authorities have commenced argument, but the same could not
be concluded.
Let this matter remain in the list for being taken up tomorrow, 8 th July,
2026 as and when the business of the court permits.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
pkd/db
