Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR
Haldiram Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority – Respondent
Judgment :
Uday Kumar, J.
1. The first appeal itself is taken up for hearing along with CAN 4 of 2022, an application for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to reconstruct the showroom of appellant after dismantling the boundary wall erected in the said shop, and to pay Rs. 2 crore 92 lakh and 29 thousand in compensation suffered due to loss of material equipment and other charges, injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering and or causing obstruction, disturbances in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. C-5 and interim orders.
2. This appeal, preferred by Haldiram Limited (the appellant), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, challenges the judgment and decree dated December 22, 2014, passed by the Learned 5th Judge (Senior Division), Alipore. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit, which sought to declare the allotment orders dated March 6 and 7, 2003 valid and binding, to declare the termination order dated January 8, 2008 illegal, and to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with its rights.
3. The legal dispute between the appellant and the Kolk
The termination of a commercial license is justified if the licensee fails to adhere to stipulated contractual obligations, as it undermines public interest and lawfulness under the contract terms.
The court affirmed the cancellation of the license deed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the stipulated conditions of the agreement.
Imposing penal charges for contract breaches is valid when stipulated policies and terms align with contractual obligations, and acceptance of penalties post-acceptance negates protest claims.
The distinction between a license and a lease is determined by the intention of the parties, as reflected in the deed, rather than merely the possession of the property.
Additional premium demand for construction delay under lease held arbitrary where caused by statutory approvals, late commencement certificates, and extra built-up area without timeline; applicable s....
Lease penalty for construction delay invalid where lessor nondiscloses material site defects, supplementary deed removes time limit for additional built-up area, delays due to approvals/statutory fac....
Supplementary lease deeming additional built-up area integral with no time limit overrides original four-year completion clause for composite construction; penalty demands arbitrary, illegal; payment....
Penalty for construction delay under lease quashed due to delays from court stay, statutory approvals, additional area; writ maintainable for arbitrary state action; 6-year extension non-discriminato....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
