9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated. The petitioner is the lessee of the said building from the said Trust. On February 25, 1958, a portion of the ground-floor premises in the said building admeasuring 4198 Sq. ft. (referred to hereinafter as "the said premises") was requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the West Bengal Act"). The purpose for which the said premises were requisitioned was establishing the main showroom of West Bengal Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, a West Bengal Government Undertaking. The said show room is called "Manjusha" and has become a landmark in Calcutta. In H.D. Vora v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquiring any independent right to retain possession of the said premises within the period of nine weeks from January 16, 1990, as set out in the said order, they were bound to hand over the possession of the said premises to the petitioner and have committed contempt as they have deliberately failed to do so. 4. We find that it is not possible to accept the submission set out hereinabove. On February 21, 1990, the Government of West Bengal issued a notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal, declaring its intention to acquire the said premises. On February 27, 1990, the said declaration was duly published. By the beginning of March 1990 the declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1986, which came into force on February 14, 1990, after obtaining the consent of the President of India. Section 49A permits acquisition of a part of a house. In our view, the question whether the acquisition is valid or not is pending for decision in the Calcutta High Court in the said writ petition filed by the said trust as owner of the building challenging the validity of the said amendment. 6. In our opinion, before a party can be committed for contempt, there must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court. In the present case, we do not find that any such wilful or deliberate or reckless disobedience of our order dated January 16, 1990, has been committed by the respondent to the contempt petition. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
