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

2009 Supreme(Cal) 702

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA & PRASENJIT MANDAL
Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd
Versus
Unit Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd
F.M.A. No. 628 of 2009
Decided On : 02-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:S.P. Roychowdhury, Pratap Chatterji, Samral Sen, Paritosh Sinha, Mainak Bose, Chaitali Chatterjee, Amitava Mitra, Dolon Dasgupta, Anindya Kumar Mitra, P.K. Ghosh, Abhrajit Mitra, Rajshree Kajaria, Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocates.

Judgment :

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1). This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No.9 dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No.7 of 2009 thereby allowing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the one under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the defendant No.1 thereby restraining the defendant No.1 from invoking bank guarantee being Annexure W and X of the injunction application and at the same time, restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 4 from permitting the invocation of the said bank guarantees and from making any payment in respect thereof to the defendant No.1 in any manner whatsoever. The defendants were further restrained from giving any effect or act in terms of the notice dated 31st January, 2009 vide Annexure Y of the injunction application or any notice of the like nature in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

(2). Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1 has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal.

(3). The plaintiff, respondent No.1 before us, filed in the First Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore a suit being Title Suit No.7 of 2009 thereby praying for the following relief: (a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from invoking the Bank Guarantees being Annexure W and X hereinabove or from receiving any payment in respect thereof from the defendant Nos.2 to 4; (b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 to 4 from permitting invocation of the Bank Guarantees being Annexure W and X hereinabove or from making any payment in respect thereof to the defendant No.1 in any manner whatsoever; (c) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect or act in terms of or in furtherance to the notices dated 31st January, 2009 being Annexure Y hereof or any notice of like nature in any manner whatsoever; (d) The Bank Guarantees mentioned in Annexure W and X hereinabove and notices dated 31st January, 2009 mentioned in Annexure Y hereinabove be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled; (e) Mandatory injunction perpetually restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with the removal of the plaintiffs plant and machinery lying at the site of the work; (f) Decree be passed against the defendant No.1 form such sum as may be found due and payable for any plant and machinery belonging to the plaintiff and/or any damage caused to such plant and machinery or removal of any components thereof; (g) Decree for Rs.8 crore against the defendant No.1 as pleaded in paragraph 34 hereof; (h) Decree for Rs.2,62,65,507/- against the defendant No.1 as pleaded in paragraph 35 hereof; (i) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% p.a.; (j) Receiver; (k) Injunction; (l) Attachment; (m) Costs; (n) Further and/or other relief.

(4). The case made out by the plaintiff may be summed up thus: (a) The plaintiff is engaged in the business relating to construction of infrastructure, real estate, etc. and performed various contracts of national importance in the past including those of various government agencies. (b) The defendant No.1 was in requirement of construction of 166 villas at Gundia, District Ronga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh and accordingly, invited tenders from interested parties. The plaintiff had registered office at P-40, Block B, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, within the jurisdiction of the Court. (c) The defendant No.1 intimated the plaintiff at its aforesaid registered office at New Alipore that the plaintiff had been successful in the tender floated by the defendant No.1 and subsequently, the plaintiff signed and made over formal contract-document to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 by its letter dated 13th January, 2007 requested the plaintiff to take up p

















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 Back to top