Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd vs Morris Baflour & on 20 December, 2017
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
20.12.2017
1
Ct. No.24 M.A.T. 1755 of 2017
ab
(Assigned)
with
C.A.N.9918 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. Vs. Morris Baflour &
ors.
With
MAT 1757 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. N. Sengupta & Co.
represented by its proprietor Parimal Acharya & ors.
With
MAT 1758 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Digbijoy Express
Pvt. Ltd.
With
MAT 1759 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Salik Ram Mishra
& ors.
With
MAT 1760 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Jagadamba
Enterprises, proprietor Sunil Kumar Dutta & ors.
With
MAT 1761 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. AD line, a sole
proprietorship form owned by Indrajit Banerjee & ors.
With
MAT 1762 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. The A to Z
Company, a partnership firm being represented by its
Partner Prithwi Guha Neogy & ors.
With
MAT 1763 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Dinesh Kumar
Agarwal & ors.
With
2
MAT 1764 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Volman Treading
Corporation, a sole propreitorship firm owned by
Gautam Mukherjee & ors.
With
MAT 1765 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Fashion Kraft AND
COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE
PROPRIETORS Subhra Acharya & ors.
With
MAT 1766 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Jitendra Mishra &
ors.
With
MAT 1767 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Rayes Agency, a
proprietorship firm being represented by its sole
proprietor Satya Prakash Dutta & ors.
With
MAT 1768 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Errand Express
Ltd. & ors.
With
MAT 1769 of 2017
(Assigned)
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. J. N. Mukherjee
Co. Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
With
APOT 203 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Paschim Banga
Krishi Upakaran Byabsayik Kalyan Samity & ors.
With
W.P.432 of 2017
With
APOT 204 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. & anr. vs. Bengal
Banded Warehouse Tenants' Welfare Asso. & ors.
With
3
W.P.410 of 2017
With
APOT 205 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. ICAEDU Skills Pvt.
Ltd. & ors.
With
W.P.380 of 2017
With
APOT 206 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. Swapan Kr. Bhadra
& ors.
With
W.P.411 of 2017
with
APOT 207 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. M/s. Friend's
Stores & ors.
With
W.P.399 of 2017
with
APOT 208 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. M/s. Tantia
Constructions Ltd. & ors.
With
W.P.382 of 2017
With
APOT 209 of 2017
Bengal Bonded Warehouse Ltd. vs. M/s. Baijnath &
Sons & ors.
With
W.P.437 of 2017
With
APOT 210 of 2017
Kailash Chandra Joshi & anr. vs. Naresh Chandra Das
& ors.
With
G.A.2182 of 2017
W.P.453 of 2016
MR. ABHRAJIT MITRA, SR. ADVOCATE, MR. ARINDAM BANERJEE,
MS. SARVOPRIYO MUKHERJEE, MR.S. NIGAM, MS. RAJSHREE
MUKHERJEE,ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS
MR.NIRMALYA DASGUPTA, MS.PRIYANKA DHAR, ADVOCATES FOR
NIPHA SALES.
MR.MAINAK BOSE, MS.PIYALI SENGUPTA, MR.S.K.BAID, ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENT TANTIA CONSTRUCTION
4
MR.RUPAK GHOSH, MR.AYAN BARAL, ADVOCATES FOR MORRIS BALFOUR MR.ASHOK KR.BANERJEE,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.ALAK KR.GHOSH, MR.SWAPAN KR.DEBNATH, MR.D.MANDAL, ADVOCATES FOR KMC MR.ANIRBAN ROY, MR.JAYANTA SENGUPTA, MR.SAGNIK BASU, MR.N.BAHAL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT IN APOT 205 OF 2017 ICA EDUSKILLS MS. SIPRA MAJUMDAR, MS. SUSMITA BISWAS CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.7 ICA EDU SKILLS PVT. LTD & ORS. IN W.P. 380 OF 2017 MS. SHYAMALI DAS.....(IN PERSON) MR. MAHENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, MR. ANIMESH PAUL, FOR THE RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER IN APOT 209 OF 2017 Though these matters have appeared in the list today under the heading "To Be Mentioned", all these appeals and the connected applications are being taken up for hearing at this stage only on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing before us have waived service of notice of appeal. We dispense with compliance of other formalities also.
These appeals are directed against a common interim order passed by the learned First Court on 22nd September, 2017 in a batch of writ petitions assailing steps taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Section 5 412 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The main dispute out of which these proceedings arise relate to several properties situated within premises no. 25, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata. We are apprised by learned counsel appearing for the parties that these immovable properties comprise of commercial space. The interim order, however, is in respect of a premises at present identified as building no. 27, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata. In the interim order passed on 22nd September 2017, the learned First Court had appointed a Special Officer who had visited the building and gave his opinion on certain repair and demolition work pertaining thereto. The operative part of the order of the learned First Court contains the following observation and direction:-
"Regarding premises No. 27, N. S. Bose Road, the observation of the learned Special Officer is that the roof/terrace is poorly 6 maintained. There is a low wall surrounding the roof which is in a poor state and a part of which has broken off. There is a narrow protruding verandah on the north wall of the building unsupported from the ground level which looks uncared for and is in a risky condition.
Learned Special Officer has opined that this varandah should be broken down.
The interim order shall not be operative in respect of this portion also but if any one takes any step to break down this portion, the same shall be done without in any manner affecting all other portions of the said premises. The occupants of 27, N.S.Bose Road and in particular the writ petitioners shall be at liberty to repair such portions of the said building which requires urgent repair at their own cost in consultation with K.M.C.. This will, however, not create any extra right or equity in their 7 favour".
The landlord of the building is the appellant before us in all these appeals and learned counsel appearing on its behalf submits that the entire building is in irreparable stage. This stand is supported by the learned counsel for the municipal corporation (KMC). We had called for a report from the Department of State Construction Engineering, Jadavpur University, on stability of the building and such report has been submitted before us. Copies of the same has also been circulated amongst the parties. We had called for this report in the context of the observation of the learned First Court in the passage we have quoted above.
In the initial interim order which was passed on 7th July, 2017 by the learned First Court KMC was enjoined from taking any step pursuant to the notice issued by the KMC on 5th June 2017 under Section 412 of the 1980 Act. This order, we are apprised by learned counsel 8 for the appellant has been directed to continue. The common appellant in all these appeals is the landlord and in course of hearing, it has assailed that part of the order impugned, by which certain repair and demolition work was permitted to be undertaken.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Having considered the report of the Jadavpur University, we are of the view that our order passed on 24th November, 2017 by which we had directed that no repair work is to be carried on till December 2017, ought to continue till the learned First Court hears out the main writ petition. We request the learned First Court to hear out the matter expeditiously. The report filed by Jadavpur University shall be placed before the learned First Court. The respondents being mainly the present occupants of the building want to take exception to the report. The parties who want to take exception to the report shall be at liberty to file affidavits 9 in response thereto by 10th January, 2018. Our interim order by which we have directed that no repair work is to be carried till December 2017, shall continue until disposal of the writ petition. In other respect the interim order passed by the learned First Court shall remain in operation. These directions shall be subject to any modification that may be directed by the learned First Court in course of hearing of the writ petition. All the appeals, which are treated on day's list and the stay petitions shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Arindam Sinha, J.) 10