SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Cal) 496

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
KALYAN BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
KAMARHATI MUNICIPALITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ABU SULTAN, SAMIR GHOSH, SVARAN DE

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition it has been submitted by the petitioner that the respondent Kamarhati Municipality placed after on the writ petitioner for printing daily collection challans. Such order we placed by issuing an indent which is annexure 'd' to the writ petition. According to the petitioner in spite of supply of the printing materials to the Municipality no payment has been released and the municipal authority by a notification dated 19th July, 1996, being annexure 'j' to the writ petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner tried to deceive the municipality creating a financial trap and for the said reason the enlistment of the petitioner as a supplier of the municipality was also cancelled. All the purchase/supply orders already issued to the petitioner but not being carried out were also treated as cancelled. Kamarhati Municipality also black listed the petitioner as an enlisted contractor/supplier of the Municipality.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the Municipality, Mr. Swapan Kumar. We, filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been admitted that the writ petitioner on 29th March, 1996 supplied 25485 pieces printed form in loose s



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top