To
The Chief Justice Of India-SCI
Dear Sir,
Goodmorning& we here with drawing your valued attention to the fact that despite our several appeal to all the Constitutional bodies Including NHRC we failed to restore Our Right to LIVEHOOD in the World Greatest Democracy & Finally lost our every right to LiveHood following NHRC also submitted to the Unjustified Rotten system of India & took U-Turn to Manage a Shelter behind the Order Of Liquidation in their latest Proceedings dt 1/07/2017(, jeopardising the lives of 50 Months unpaid Payroll Employees of Tyre Corporation Of India-A CPSU, 100% owned by GOI-DHI) is furnished below for your kind Perusal.( Enclosed in the attacheh File
7/5/2017 nhrc.nic.in/display.asp
https://nhrc.nic.in/display.asp 1/1
Skip to Main Content िह
And it is Pertinent to mention that Regarding Salary NoCase is Registered in The Calcutta High Court at Present Excepting a Petition Challenging The Most Corrupted Move of Official Liquidator Towards Disposal of Assets of TCIL worth more than 200 Crores for only RS 12 Crores Vide Case No ACO-30/APO-108/CP-84 of 2013 , last judgment of the Concerned case is furnished below for your kind perusal-OD-25
ACO No.30 of 2017
APO No.108 of 2017
CP No.84 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
TYRE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (IN LIQN.)
Versus
ANUP HOME ROY & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY
Date : 12th April, 2017.
Appearance:
Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv.
..for the appellants
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Radhika Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv.
..for the respondent no.4
Mr. R. Chowdhury, Adv.
..for the O/L
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Adv.
..for U.O.I
The Court : There is not much difficulty in deciding the appeal. However,
the fourth respondent in the appeal has to be dealt with appropriately. The order
impugned was passed on June 16, 2016, confirming the sale of the factory premises of
2
the company (in liquidation) and the movables thereat in favour of the fourth respondent
herein. The appeal is by the erstwhile employees of the company (in liquidation) who
complain of the impugned order not even referring to the valuation report while
confirming the sale at a price less than half of what the assets had been valued at.
There is no reference to the valuation in the order impugned.
It is not for nothing that the appellate Court stayed the order of sale on
October 3, 2016 and refused to vary the order of stay despite the fourth respondent
herein applying for a variation. By the order dated November 17, 2016, wherein the
fourth respondent in the appeal is erroneously recorded as the third respondent, the
Court observed that the entirety of the order dated June 16, 2016 had been stayed and
any variation thereto would amount to the virtual dismissal of the appeal. In addition
and for good measure, the order dated November 17, 2016 expressly restrained the
fourth respondent purchaser “by an order of injunction from removing any item/goods
lying at the factory premises.”
The purchaser will file an affidavit by the time the matter appears next a
fortnight hence detailing what asset may have been removed from the factory premises of
the company in liquidation, when and in what circumstances. The affidavit should
furnish details upto the last nut or bolt removed from the factory premises.
It is evident that the appeal papers were served on the purchaser some
time in the middle of September, 2016 and the appeal could be moved only on or about
October 3, 2016 when the order impugned was immediately stayed. There could have
been no occasion for the purchaser to remove the assets when a notice of appeal was
received or service of the proposed appeal papers was effected. In any event, not a nut or
a bolt could have been removed from the factory premises of the company in liquidation
upon the order of sale being stayed on October 3, 2016. It will also be the obligation of
3
the purchaser to identify the person or persons who may now be in possession of any
asset removed from the factory premises of the company in liquidation so that the same
may be recovered from such persons.
Without attending to such aspect of the matter and making the purchaser
return all the assets, it would be farcical to dispose of the appeal by merely setting aside
the order impugned herein.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
(SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
Bp.
Apropos to above situation your goodself is requested to let us allow to Commit Suicide for we dont have any new avenue for Survival Without Money after Rendering our Honest Sacred Service to GOI, The Great Model Employer ,That has Thrown His Payroll Employees in the Street without Paying their Legitimate Satutory Dues Including VRS following an Unauthorised Closure & Mking a History Thus.
With Regards.
Apurba Saha Hazra-Sr.Officer Technical,TCIL & General Secretary-TCIL Jiont Action Committee,Under NCOA
