Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Premier Nirman Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development ... on 10 March, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
3 10.03. CPAN 2154 of 2013
ns 2016 In
FMA 3985 of 2014
Premier Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Versus
Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority and Ors.
Mr. Mainak Bose,
Mr. D. roy,
Mr. Sachin Shukla,
Ms. S. Gandhi ....... For the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Basu,
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar ... for alleged contemnors.
The direction was against the Siliguri
Jalpaiguri Development Authority on 13.03.2013.
As a matter of fact, way back on 22.01.2013 in
W.P. No.15604(W) of 2008 learned Single Judge directed
that the amount which is about Rs.30 lakhs could not
have been adjusted by the respondents / comtemnor
from the sum alleged to be due in another agreement unless the respondent / contemnor could establish that the respondent no.1 is having either statutory or a general lien like Section 171 of the Contract Act over such sums of money. Therefore, the impugned order of 2 adjustment passed by the respondent / contemnor unilaterally was set aside.
This came to be challenged in MAT 306 of 2013. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the matter on 13.3.2013 upholding the opinion of the learned Single Judge, but granted stay of refund of earnest money of Rs.30 lakhs for a period of eight weeks from 13.03.2013 provided within such time the respondent / contemnor may seek relief in the civil suit which was already filed by them with regard to another agreement between the parties for recovery of money by way of either attachment or adjustment relief.
Apparently, there was no extension of stay order so far as refund of earnest money of Rs.30 lakhs though respondent said to have made certain applications before the civil Court. Now the time provided has lapsed almost three years back, but till date the respondent / contemnor has not moved his little finger either to get an order restraining the refund of amount to the complainant or extension of stay from this Court.
This is a serious lapse on the part of the respondent / contemnor. When we are about to issue 3 Rule, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / contemnor submits that the contemnor was always ready to refund the money and the demand draft was also kept ready which was renewed from time to time. In absence of any order restraining them from not refunding the earnest money, we fail to understand how they could keep the demand draft renewed without paying the money for a period of three years. This is nothing but grave error in understanding the directions given by this Court. The respondent is not a rustic person not to understand the directions given by this Court.
In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent / contemnor undertakes to keep demand draft ready by next date of hearing which includes not only the earnest deposit of Rs.30 lakhs but also payment of interest at 9% per annum thereon on the principal sum from the date of accrual of liability to pay in terms of the directions of this Court till the date of payment.
List the matter on 17.03.2016.
( Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice ) 4 ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )