High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 CAL CK 0025

Fabworth Promoters Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 5 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Sinha, J
CASE NUMBER
T 1 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 384 words

Arindam Sinha, J

The Court : Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and moves this writ petition unlisted, citing urgency, on leave granted.

Impugned in the writ petition is letter dated 16th January, 2020 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation for encashment of bank guarantee submitted

in lieu of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) development charges. He files affidavits of service to show KMDA has been served

through electronic mail. It goes unrepresented.

He draws attention to the bank guarantee to demonstrate, the guarantee was furnished through bank for payment of Rs.3,19,77,858/- against demand

from KMC after KMDA held that the sum is payable as its development charges. Letter dated 30th August, 2018, disclosed as annexure P17, is

KMDA’s letter saying that the issue of whether development charges is required to be levied by KMC, is required to be heard and considered in

presence of petitioners. It is his submission that the issue has not yet been decided. As such invocation of the bank guarantee is arbitrary action on the

part of KMC, a statutory body. He seeks interference as an interim measure.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation and submits, it is for KMDA to say whether the issue has been decided by it.

Meanwhile, condition precedent for sanction of plan was payment of this development fee. The plan stood sanctioned, the development made and

completion certificate obtained. This is reason for invocation of the bank guarantee. There should be no interference. Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, learned

advocate appears on behalf of the bank and submits, as of this moment, the invocation is being processed. Payment has not yet been made.

The invocation letter dated 16th January, 2020 does not speak of a demand made by KMDA for the sum on the guarantor, after it having held, it is

payable by the guarantor. Court has also not been able to obtain the information from learned counsel appearing on behalf of KMC, the beneficiary.

As such respondent bank will suspend its processing on the invocation and pay-out, till 17th February, 2020. Petitioner will serve copy of this order on

KMDA and file affidavit of service on adjourned date. KMDA is at liberty to mention, upon notice, to demonstrate that the issue stands decided.

List on 10th February, 2020.