Skip to main content

Calcutta High Court proposes "pragmatic approach" to provide justice

The Calcutta High Court has adopted a “pragmatic” approach towards condonation of delay on the part of state observing that deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the officers of the State cannot be a ground to sacrifice justice. The Court observed that Corporation as such is not responsible for the delay but its officers/agents. The First Bench presided by the then Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court Dr. Manjula Chellur (Presently Chief Justice of Bombay High Court), in Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. The Cricket Association of Bengal, imposed a cost of one lakh and directed corporation to take action against those erring officials and also to recover the costs from those officers who are responsible for the delay. A delay of 299 days had occurred on the part of Corporation in filing appeal in the matter of demand of advertisement tax imposed by Calcutta Municipal Corporation so far as the advertisements undertaken within the Eden Garden grounds by the Cricket Association of Bengal.

 Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/calcutta-hc-moots-pragmatic-approach-matter-condonation-delay-state/

Note: The judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is definitely at variance with that of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court pronounced earlier. Unfortunately, while the logic given by the the Calcutta court is irrefutable, the Government being the representative of the public, it would always be in the public interest to show leniency towards the State. In such cases, allowing the State but fining the errant officials at every instance of such blatant delays would be a good idea.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more