- (1.) This application has been taken out by the petitioner for drawing up contempt proceedings alleging deliberate violation of the orders dated 24th February, 2011 and 20th of May, 2011 passed by this Court. The relevant facts for which the aforesaid contempt proceedings is sought to be initiated are shortly put hereunder:-
(2.) In terms of the Area Assignment Agreement dated 23rd March, 2007 between the petitioner, first respondent and one M/s. Presidium Construction Company Private Limited wherein the respondent being a party was put in possession on or about 16th April, 2007. As such the said land in question was under its possession and control to the exclusion of all respondents for the purpose of carrying, executing the works in terms of the development agreement. After obtaining possession the petitioner started various works which are preliminary in nature to commence actual work of erection and construction, such as levelling of the land, soil testing and other initial steps required before erection of permanent structures thereon. The petitioner also appointed reputed Architect for starting construction. Various reasons for which the petitioner was not at fault construction work could not be started the respondent No. 1 raising frivolous dispute, alleging non-performance of the contract terminated the said agreement. Immediate after taking possession the petitioner deployed the security agency for protection of the property. As there has been dispute the petitioner on or about May 18, 2010 filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for obtaining prohibitory order of injunction. The Chief Judge of City Civil Court has passed an order on 9th June, 2010 restraining the respondents dispossessing the petitioner from its possession and occupation of the said property in any manner till 21st of June, 2010 on Miscellaneous application filed subsequent to filing application under section 9. Thereafter, the said original application under section 9 together with the said Miscellaneous Application came up for hearing and both the applications were dismissed by order dated 2nd February, 2011 and interim order passed was vacated on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal an appeal was preferred in this Hon'ble Court and necessary interlocutory application was made in the said appeal. The Appeal Court by an order dated February 24, 2011 admitted the appeal for hearing and passed an order of status quo as regard possession as on the date of admission to be maintained by both the parties. The Appeal Court clarified the said order of status quo, that if the petitioner was in possession it would continue with such possession, on the other hand if the respondent was in possession respondent would retain the same and it would not part with possession in favour of the third party. The said interim order was directed to continue for a period of three months or until further orders whichever is earlier. It is claimed in the petition that since April 16, 2007 the petitioner has been and still is in exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession over and in respect of the said land. The petitioner purchased construction materials and stored the same in the godown constructed at the site land and such materials were partly kept by the petitioner at the site itself. The petitioner caused insurance to be taken out with an Insurance Company in respect of the construction and the on going progress of the construction of the said land. Basing on those documents the petitioner wants to assert that the petitioner had and still has been in exclusive possession as such the protective order of status quo was bound to operate in favour of the petitioner.;