Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal130
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit whereby the plaintiffs seek to vindicate a right which they claim under a putni lease in their favour executed in 1870. By that document it was provided on the part of the zemindar as follows: 'We (that is the zemindars) shall pay the Government revenue, poolbundi and dak cesses, you having nothing to do with the same.' The Embankment Acts in force at that time were XXXII of 1855 (Government of India) and Act VII of 1866 (Government of Bengal), and for the purposes of this argument it has been assumed that the obligation in respect of embankment charges was on the zemindars at that time. Whether that was so under Act VII of 1866 in all cases we need not now determine, but we will assume, for the purpose of this case, the correctness of the view that the stipulation which I have read gave practical effect to the state of the law as it then stood. These two Acts have been repealed, and that now in force is Act II of 1882 of the Bengal Legislature. There are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original Side A.P. 543 of 2017 Sikaria Divinity Private Limited vs. State of West Bengal For the petitioners:- Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar. Sr. Adv. Mr. Arindam Mukherjee Mr. Swarvanu Saha Advocates For the State:- Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Addl. Govt. Pleader Mr. Paritosh Sinha Mr. Arindam Mondal Advocates Judgement On: - 18th August, 2017 I.P. MUKERJI, J.The river Hooghly, while flowing down the plains of Bengal towards the sea, has branched out, upstream of Chuchura in the Hooghly District, to form a beautiful island in the middle of the river, measuring about 75 acres. It is called Sabuj Dweep.. It has trees and plants of many kinds and recreational facilities which attract thousands of tourists over the year. The land belongs to the Department of Tourism, Government of West Bengal. This department conceived of the idea of developing the island into a eco- tourism resort. On 14th August, 2015 it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * 2 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM.) 232/2016 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocates. versus BSC-RBM-PATI JOINT VENTURE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Ms.Nandita Bajpai and Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0301.2017 % 1. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) challenging the Award dated 10th October, 2014 as well as a further order dated 22nd January, 2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) modifying the said Award in the disputes between the NHAI and BSC-RBM-PATI Joint Venture (hereafter referred to as the Contractor) arising out of a contract agreement dated 24th July, 1997 for execution of Four laning and strengthening of existing two lane pavement between Raniganj (KM474 and Panagarh (KM515236) section of NH-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET A.P.No.77 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NCC LIMITED Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 24th January, 2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra,Advocate Mr.S.Ghosh,Advocate Mr.S.Basu,Advocate Mr.S.K.Chakraborty,Advocate For State : Mr.Samrat Sen,Advocate Mr.P.Sinha,Advocate Mr.Mainak Bose,Advocate The Court : This matter was mentioned in the morning to seek a leave to move at 2 P.M.as unlisted matter and upon leave being granted in this regard, the matter is taken up at 2 P.M.In this application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner prays for an interim order restraining the respondents from taking steps to invoke the bank guarantee. The petitioner was awarded a contract for reconstruction, remodelling and improvement of the embankment at Sundarban and adjoining areas in the district of North and Sought 24 Parganas. In terms of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: April 12, 2013 + OMP No.155/2011 M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Arun Kumar Varma, Adv. with Ms.Mansi Wadhera & Mr.Ashish Bansal, Advs. versus M/S PROGRESSIVE-MVR(JV) ..... Respondent Through Mr.Amit George, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the award dated 25th October, 2010.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner awarded contract for execution of works of four laning from kms. 480+00 to Kms. 520+00 of Gopalganj Muzzafarpur Section of NH-28 in the state of Bihar vide letter dated 8th July, 2005.3. A formal contract agreement was signed on 24th August, 2005.4. It is stated by the petitioner that the entire work under the said contract was divided into various items forming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the relief and challenges are inter-connected. We may first set out and deal with the facts and issues of Writ Petition No.9416 (M/B) of 2010. The petitioner has moved this Court complaining of violation of Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in exercise of powers under sub-section 1 and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Act) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Environment Rules), which was issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27 th January, 1994. The allegation is that the State of U.P. and its authorities have failed to carry out the directions as contained in the notification.2. It is the petitioners grievance that the authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation) holding that the plot of land which the petitioners intend to develop was a tank/water body and therefore the bar of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (hereafter the Fisheries Act) is attracted. It was further held by him that since the petitioners had been gradually filling up the tank/water body, they shall restore the same in its original position.2. The impugned order is undated and has been forwarded to the first petitioner by the Executive Engineer (C)/PMU of the Corporation by his letter dated 19.4.2008.3. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the issue involved in this writ petition, the genesis of the dispute may be noticed.4. The first two petitioners are joint directors of M/s. Ornate Builders Private Limited, a company within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act, the third petitioner (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellants claimed to be the owners of different contagious plots at Mouza - Manikdihi under Police Station Kaliganj in the District of Nadia. In 1960, the Land Acquisition Collector requisitioned the said land for the ultimate purpose of acquisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for the purpose of construction of raising and straightening Jagat Khali Food Protection Embankment. After the appropriate order of requisition it was the obligation of the State to take appropriate steps for ultimate acquisition of the property by initiating an acquisition proceeding issuing notice under Section 4(1a) of the said Act of 1948. The legislature subsequently enacted a law namely the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1994 giving its effect on and from March 31, 1994 by which Section 3 of the said Act of 1948 was omitted. The life of the said Act of 1948 was however, limited till March 31, 1997 by subsequent amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC1039(SC); JT2009(14)SC344; 2009(13)SCALE642; (2010)1SCC311; 2009(10)LC4936(SC):2009AIRSCW7452
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted in SLP(Civil) Nos. 12127 of 2006, 12722 of 2006 and 6808-6809 of 2008.2. This group of seven appeals arises from the common judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on February 28, 2006 and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The core issue that calls for determination in these appeals is whether `ordinary earth' used for filling or levelling purposes in the construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings has validly been declared to be a `minor mineral' by the Central Government vide notification dated February 3, 2000 issued under Section 3(e) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, `Act, 1957').4. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of these appeals. The brief narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 2088 of 2007 will suffice. The appellant therein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(1)CHN20
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have come up with a plea that a pond in the village, allegedly owned by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 is not only being illegally filled up but a huge construction thereupon is coming up at the instance of those respondents.2. According to the petition, the said pond has an area of about 1 acre 53 satak and all through the year, the pond retains the water. The petitioners point out that originally some other persons were the owners of the said tank along with other contiguous land. However, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 became the owners by virtue of a sale deed few years ago. The petitioners complain that from 28th of May, 2003 the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 started construction activity by making pillars in the tank. There are some photographs filed along with the writ petition which show substantial construction activity on the bank of the said tank. It is the contention of the petitioners that though they pro...
Tag this Judgment!