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

2017 Supreme(Cal) 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Derby Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Sanjay Mitra, Chief Secy., Land & Land Reforms Dept. & Ors. - Respondents
G.A. No. 2666 of 2016 and C.C. No. 156 of 2015
Decided On : 13-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. C. Gupta, and Mr. D.R. Basu, Advocates.
For the KMC :Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Alok Kr. Das and Mr. Gopal Ch. Das, Advocates.
For the State :Mr. J.K. Mitra, Advocate General, Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Advocate and Mr. B. Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Applicant :Mr. P.K. Ray, Sr. Advocate.

The court has the power to issue directions for remedying and rectifying the violation of its orders in addition to punishing the contemnor for contempt.

Headnote:

Contempt - Violation of Court Order - Contempt of Courts Act - [VIOLATION] - [PROPERTY DISPOSSESSION] - [Contempt of Courts Act23, 2(b), 9, 11, 19, 23, 34, 35, 36, 37] - The court directed the respondent authorities to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said property. The petitioners alleged that the order was not complied with and filed a contempt application. The court found intentional disobedience by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and directed the KMC to implement the order within 8 weeks.

Fact of the Case:

The contempt application was filed for alleged violation of a judgment and order dated 4 June, 2015, whereby the court directed the respondent authorities to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of a property to the petitioner. The petitioners alleged non-compliance with the order and intentional disobedience by the respondent authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found intentional disobedience by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and directed the KMC to implement the order within 8 weeks. The court dismissed the application against other respondents.

Issues: Violation of court order, intentional disobedience, and non-compliance with the order by the respondent authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that intentional disobedience to the court's order must be shown for contempt. The court has the power to issue directions for remedying and rectifying the violation of its orders in addition to punishing the contemnor for contempt.

Final Decision: The contempt proceeding stands closed as against the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. The Rule issued against the respondent no. 3 is returnable after 8 weeks. The court directed the KMC to implement the order within 8 weeks.

JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of a judgment and order dated 4 June, 2015 whereby WP No. 829 of 2013 (Derby Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) was disposed of. The operative portion of the said order of which violation is alleged reads as follows:-

"In view of the aforesaid, this court directs the respondent authorities to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said property being premises No. 7/1A, Hazra Road, Kolkata 700019 to the petitioner no. 1 within four weeks from date. In the event the respondent authorities fail to comply with this order the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Commissioner of Police as also the officer-in-charge of the Bhawanipore Police Station for the purpose of implementing this order and obtaining vacant and peaceful possession of the said property by removing the occupants therefrom. If so approached, the Commissioner of Police and the Officer-in-Charge of the Bhawanipore Police Station will render all necessary assistance and extend all cooperation to the petitioners for the purpose of implementing this order."

2. The petitioners allege that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondent authorities inasmuch as vacant and peaceful possession of premises No. 7/1A, Hazra Road, Calcutta-7000019 has not been made over to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of the order or at all. They further allege that the Police Authorities have also violated the order by not rendering all necessary assistance and extending cooperation to the petitioners for the purpose of implementing the order.

3. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to a letter dated 29 June, 2015 addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhawanipore Police Station by the petitioner company and a letter dated 1 July, 2015 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta by the petitioner company regarding implementation of the order dated 4 June, 2015. Learned Counsel also referred to a letter dated 7 July, 2015 addressed to amongst others, Municipal Commissioner, KMC which was a notice of contempt for noncompliance of the order dated 4 June, 2015. Learned Counsel finally referred to a letter dated 24 June, 2015 written by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Kolkata to the Commissioner, KMC calling upon the latter to comply with the order dated 4 June, 2015. He submitted that the respondent authorities have acted in wilful violation of the order dated 4 June, 2015 and accordingly should be committed for contempt.

4. It is not in dispute that vacant and peaceful possession of the said property has not been handed over to the petitioner no. 1.

5. Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, in his usual fairness, admitted that the order has not been complied with. He submitted that an appeal was preferred from the said order which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. However, he submitted that the effect of preferring an appeal from an order is that the order loses the character of finality. In this connection Mr. Banerjee referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Prosad Gooptu v. Diana Engineering Company, (1950) 55 CWN 509. He relied on the observation of the Division Bench at page 514 of the reported judgment which reads as follows:-

"…….once the appeal was preferred from the order that order lost its finality. A decision liable to appeal may be 'final' until the appeal is preferred. But once the appeal is filed the decision loses its character of 'finality' and what was once res judicata becomes res sub judice, that is, a matter under judicial enquiry. The appeal destroys the finality of the decision, the decree of the lower court is superseded by the decree of the Appellate Court. In other words, once an appeal is filed from a decree or order in a matter, it becomes a pending matter…………………













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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