JIWANI KUMARI PAREKH versus SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE WEST BENGAL HANDICRAFT DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 10-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JIWANI KUMAR! PAREKH 
v. 
SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY, MANAGING DIRECTOR 
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE WEST BENGAL 
HANDICRAFT DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. 
OCTOBER JO, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I: S. 2(b)-Contempt-Committal 
for-Wilful or deliberate disobedience of Court's orders-Necessity for. 
By its order dated January 16, 1990 in the writ petition, the Court 
had directed respondent No. 4 to hand over possession of the premises 
requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Coi•trol 
(Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, within nine weeks subject to their 
obtaining any order from the High Court or acquiring any independent 
D 
right within that period to retain possession. 
In the meantime, the Land Acquisition (West.Bengal Amendment) 
Act, 1986, which inserted s. 49A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as 
applicable to the State, came into force on February 14, 1990 permit• 
ting acqusition of a part of a house. A week thereafter the State Govern- . 
E 
ment initiated acquisition _process in respect of the said premises. Notifi-
cations under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued, and 
the Land Acquisition Collector authorised to take possession under 
s. 17(1) of the Act. However, on March 20, 1990 in a writ challenging 
the validity of the acquisition proceedings the High Court directed the 
status quo to be maintained r'garding possession. 
F 
In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged that the respon~ 
dent had deliberately failed to hand over possession in terms of the 
order dated January 16, 1990. The acquisition was also assailed as 
being patently bad in law. 
G 
HELD: 1. Before a party can be committed for contempt, there 
must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court .. 
In the instant case, no such wilful or deliberate or reckless disobedience 
of the order dated January 16, 1990 has been committed by the respon-
dent to the contempt petition. [249F] -
H 
2. The question whether the acquisition is valid or not is pending 
246 
J.K. PAREKH v. S. CHAKRAVORTY [KANIA, J.) 
247 
for decision in the High Court. In case the petitioner succeeds the 
respondent would have remained in possession of the said premises for 
a long time after they should have handed-over the possession. They 
are, therefore, directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000 per month 
commencing from 1st October, 1990 in the Court in addition to 
Rs.15,000 per month they are already paying under the earlier 
directions. [250A-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 
71 of 1990. 
AND 
Interlocutory Application No. I of 1990. 
IN 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. l 1222 of 1983. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
Shanti Bhushan, Bashant Bhushan, Bohla Prasad Singh for the 
Petitioner. 
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H. Desai, 
Solicitor General, Tapas Roy, Ratin Das and D.K. Sinha for the 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KANIA, J. Seth Mann al al Surana Memorial Trust is the owner 
of a building situate at 7/10, Lindsay Street, Calcutta, one of the 
busiest streets in Calcutta where the New Market is situated. The 
F 
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 o(West Bengal 
under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary 
Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the West Bengal 
G 
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 of Maharashtra 
and Others, [ 1984) 2 SCC 337 this Court held that the provisions for 
H 
A 
c 
D 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
requisition could be resorted to only where premises were required for 
a temporary purpose but not where they were required for a per-
manent purpose. If permises were required for a permanent purpose, 
they have to be acquired in accordance with law. Following upon this 
decision, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 11222 of 
1983 in this Court praying for a mandatory order dire
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.