TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Contempt Petition; Compensation Deposit Ordered for Premises Use</h1> <h3>Jiwani Kumari Parekh Versus Satyabrata Chakravorty and Ors.</h3> The Court dismissed the contempt petition, noting no deliberate disobedience of its order. However, it acknowledged prolonged possession by the ... - Issues:1. Requisition of premises under the West Bengal Act.2. Contempt petition for failure to hand over possession.3. Validity of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.4. Dismissal of contempt petition and compensation for prolonged possession.Analysis:1. The case involves the requisition of premises under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. The petitioner, a lessee of the building, filed a writ petition seeking the premises' derequisition, which was requisitioned for establishing a showroom. The petitioner argued that requisition should only be for temporary purposes, not permanent ones, as per legal precedent.2. The Court issued directions for handing over possession of the premises to the petitioner within a specified period. The petitioner alleged contempt, claiming the respondents failed to obtain any order from the High Court or independent right to retain possession within the given time frame, thus violating the Court's order.3. The Government of West Bengal initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the said premises. The petitioner challenged the acquisition's validity, contending that acquiring only the ground-floor without corresponding upper floors would be legally flawed. The matter was pending before the Calcutta High Court for a decision on the acquisition's legality.4. The Court dismissed the contempt petition, finding no deliberate disobedience of its order. However, it acknowledged the prolonged possession by the respondents and ordered them to deposit compensation for the use of the premises, in addition to the previously ordered amount, until the final disposal of the writ petition. The deposited amounts were to be invested in a nationalized bank in fixed deposits. The Court expressed hope for an early resolution of the challenge to the acquisition's validity in the High Court.
TaxTMI 
