DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION Vs. MRITYUNJOY BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 23.6.92 as well as the orders dated 15.7.92 and 20.7.92. The writ application was disposed, of by the learned Trial Judge by the order dated 23.6.92. The said order reads as follows :

(2.) Thereafter, an application was filed by the appellant alleging that the said order had not been passed by consent but in the order it has been wrongly recorded that the order was passed by consent and in connection with that order an application for stay was filed and by the order dated 20.7.92 the said application was disposed of by the following order :

(3.) It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in details. A writ application was filed by the Opposite Party Mrityunjoy Basu, who was a Receiver, in respect of the property praying for a declaration that the DVC was bound by the principle of promissory estoppel to renew the tenancy agreement and also to execute the renewal agreement with the writ petitioner as well as for a direction upon the appellant DVC to make payment rent on calculation as detailed in paragraph 23 of the writ petition. The said writ application was disposed of by the order dated 23.6.92 as stated above.