- (1.) I have read the judgement proposed to be delivered by my learned brother. I am in full concurrence with it. However, I would like to add a few words.
(2.) At one point of time, the appellant was a lessee under the first Respondent No. 1. The lease was granted in favour of the J.J.H. Industries Private Ltd and thereafter enjoyed by the appellant from 2nd January, 1967 for 30 years. It expired on 1st January, 1997. This respondent was only interested in granting a fresh lease of 15 years with effect from 2nd January, 1997 but the appellant wanted it for 99 years 2003. The said respondent would be willing to grant it for 99 years from 1st March, 2003 upon payment of a premium of Rs. 1,08,90131 and occupation charges from 2nd January, 1997 up to 28th February, 2003, amounting to Rs. 18,52,481. But it appears that the appellant could not come to a decision, as to what they wanted. By this letter, this respondent also asked the appellant to handover possession of the subject property. Then came two writ applications before this Court, preferred by the appellant.
(3.) The first one was WP No. 1523 of 2003 (Eri-Tech Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) On 31st July, 2003, an interim order was passed by this Court asking the appellant to show their bona fide by depositing Rs. 15 lakhs with the Kolkata Port Trust Authorities. At the time of argument, I was told that this sum was not deposited by the appellant and hence the writ application was dismissed.;