Shri Justice Harish Tandon


  • He enrolled as an Advocate on 26th September 1989.
  • He started practising in the High Court (HC) at Calcutta and conducted civil, constitutional matters.
  • Practised primarily in the appellate side of the High Court (HC) in Calcutta and also presented before the city’s Civil Court, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Supreme Court.
  • He was appointed as a permanent Judge of the High Court (HC) at Calcutta on 13th April 2010.

Judgments and orders:




The order passed in Date: 20th April, 2010.

The Court: Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned since we are satisfied with the cause as stated in the application and appeal is directed against the order of 17th March 2009. It appears that in this matter the amount so due by the company to the petitioning creditor has already been paid. The matter did appear on 11th March 2010 before the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and an order was passed directing advertisement to be published in the newspapers. It is also submitted that none of the creditors or any other person appeared or joined the winding-up petition after the publication of the advertisement. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that payment of Rs.4, 85,030/- had already been paid. The petitioning creditor did not raise any objection in respect thereof. It is also submitted that despite notice, none appeared or joined in the winding-up proceeding. Under those circumstances, we find that the order so passed by the learned Trial Court should have permanently stayed. The winding-up petition also stands permanently stayed. Appeals and applications are hereby dealt with on the above terms. All parties concerned have to take action on a signed photocopy of this order on the general undertakings. Immediately certified photocopies of this order, if applicable, should be supplied to the parties for compliance with all required formalities.




The order passed on 20th April, 2010.

The Court: Heard Mr Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/appellants. He submits that the appeal should be heard out and he did not press the stay petition. It appears that the respondent No.1 floated a tender for supply of explosives. The petitioners claim to have submitted its offer quoting two sets of prices, one is inclusive of excise duty, and the other is exclusive of excise duty. Defendant No. 1 accepted the petitioners’ offer and was asked to supply in bulk quantities as required by defendant No. 1. The price, which has been offered by the petitioners, excluding excise duty, was accepted. The Excise authority demanded excise duty on the supply made by the writ petitioners, which was disputed by the writ petitioners. The said dispute was ultimately resolved to accept the contention of the writ petitioners that they are not liable to pay excise duty. The only dispute in this matter is whether the price of explosives supplied was subject to revision or not. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties in this regard. Service of notice of appeal is exempted. For the reasons described above, the stay application is disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

  1. Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

CORUM: Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Justice Harish Tandon

The court: - The respondent no.1 company appeared before us through Mr Ghosh, learned Advocate and submitted that the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and on 16th February, 2010 an order was passed by the said Hon’ble Court staying the auction scheduled to be held as per the auction notice dated 8th February, 2010 and the said writ petition but still pending for final hearing. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that order so passed on 19th March, 2010 directing the receiver, who has already been appointed, to take actual physical possession of the said ‘BackHoe Loader’, and ‘Sensor Paver’ may be confirmed. Accordingly, the said order is confirmed at this stage given the order already passed by the said Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appeal is also treated as on day’s list and accordingly disposed of. All undertakings are discharged. The order so produced is kept on record. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on usual undertakings.