Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 29 September, 2011

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                            In The High Court At Calcutta
                                     Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
    29-09-2011                                Appellate Side
       sb-9
                                       W.P.No.14355(W) of 2011
.

Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr.

-vs-

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.


                          Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee
                          Mr. Debdutta Sen
                          Mr. O.P. Jhunjhunwalla                ...for the petitioners

                          Mr. Debayan Bera
                          Mr. Satyajit Talukdar                       ...for KMDA


                          After    hearing    Mr    Mukherjee      appearing   for   the
                 petitioners      and   Mr    Bera     appearing     for   KMDA      and

considering the case, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the petition and pass an appropriate interim order.

The petitioners are alleging that without determining the licence fee they are supposed to pay for using certain lands of the authority in connection with execution of the works in question, the authority has unilaterally decided to deduct from their running bills around Rs.7 crore. According to the petitioners, the authority was under an obligation to determine the licence fee in consultation with them and following a fair procedure or approaching an appropriate authority or forum.

Mr Mukherjee has submitted that unless the deducted amount is released, the petitioners regularly submitting running bills and working for completing the project according to terms and conditions of the contract will be in great difficulty; and that it will not be possible for them to pay the people they have engaged for the works. He has suggested that, if at all, the authority may be permitted to keep a sum of Rs.1 crore subject to the result of this petition.

Mr Bera has submitted that he needs time to file opposition justifying the decision taken by the authority, and that with respect to retention of a part of the deducted amount he will leave the matter to the discretion of the Court.

In view of the above-noted situation, I admit the petition and order that keeping a sum of Rs.1 crore the balance deducted amount shall be released by the authority at once.

It is made clear that pendency of this petition and operation of the interim order shall hot prevent the parties from settling the matter amicably. Payment and deduction shall be subject to the result of this petition.

The respondents shall file opposition within a week after the long vacation; reply, if any, shall be filed by two weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention for out of turn hearing. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)