Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Bajaj Finance Limited And 2 Ors on 6 March, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010043062024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/5/2024
FIVE D ENTERPRISES AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR DEB DAS KANGSA BANIK, THE
PETITIONER NO 2 (AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS), R/O STATION ROAD, W/N-12
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, HAILAKANDI, ASSAM-788151
2: DEB DAS KANGSA BANIK
S/O LT. SANTI RANJON KANGSA BANIK
R/O STATION ROAD
WARD NO-12
HAILAKANDI
PS. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN-78815
VERSUS
BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED AND 2 ORS
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
SURVEY 208/1-B, BEHIND WEIKFIELD IT PARK, VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE-
411035 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT INFINITY BENCHMARK, 12TH FLOOR,
OFFICE 1201, PLOT-G1, EP AND GP BLOCK, SECTOR-5, SALT LAKE,
KOLKATA-700091 AND ALSO AT 42A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, BUILDING
NAME- EXPRESS TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, NEAR FBB MALL, KOLKATA, WEST
BENGAL-700017 AND KTM PARK STREET, 32, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, PARK
STREET AREA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 700071 BEING REPRESENTED BY
ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY PALASH DAS
2:THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST
BENGAL
WRITERS BUILDING
G BLOCK
4TH FLOOR
KOLKATA-700001
Page No.# 2/4
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
LAW DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GAUHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 06.03.2024 Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In this petition, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing the compliant case, being Case No. CS/159917/23, under Sections 418/420/406/506 of the IPC, read with Section 120B of the IPC, pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th Court, Calcutta, West Bengal.
3. Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1, Five D Enterprises is the company represented by the petitioner No. 2, namely, Deb Das Kangsa Banik, and that said company had taken a loan of Rs. 15,54,125/- from the respondent No. 1-Bajaj Finance Ltd., by executing an agreement which is annexed with the petition as Annexure 3, and thereafter, the petitioners have failed to make payment of the loan amount for which as per clause mentioned in the agreement, the matter was referred to Arbitrator and the Arbitrator, vide an ex-parte order dated 23.01.2023, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 17,01,618/- with interest @ 18% per annum Page No.# 3/4 and on the basis of the said arbitration award, the respondent No. 1 has instituted an execution proceeding before the Court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi, upon which the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, has registered Money Execution (Arbitration) Case No. 3/23 and issued notice to the petitioners and the petitioners have received notice.
4. Mr. Mazumder further submits that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has instituted a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and upon the said complaint, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 418/420/406/506 of the IPC, read with Section 120B of the IPC and issued summon to the petitioners to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 th Court, Calcutta, on 15.03.2024. Mr. Mazumder also submits that the agreement was executed at Cachar, Silchar, between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioners and as such, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. in the State of Assam. But, suppressing the aforesaid fact, the respondent No. 1 has instituted the complaint case before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore, Mr. Mazumder has contended to allow the petition.
5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.
6. It appears that the agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 at Cachar, Silchar on 14.09.2020 and as such, cause of action of the case arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and it took place in the State of Assam, not in the State of West Bengal, and therefore, the learned Chief Metropolitan Court, Calcutta may not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Page No.# 4/4
7. Having considered above, and having considered all the facts and circumstances on the record, it is provided that let notice be issued to the respondents at this stage, returnable in four weeks.
8. Steps be taken upon the respondent No. 1 by way of Registered post with A/D as well as through usual process within a week from today.
9. Further, considering the submission of Mr. Mazumder and also considering the facts and circumstance on the record, it is provided that further proceeding of Case No. CS/159917/23, pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta, West Bengal, shall remain stayed till the next returnable date.
10. List after four weeks.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant