Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Batliboi Limited vs M/S Citadel Instrumentation & Anr on 1 July, 2025
01.07.2025
Court No.25
Sl. No.36
Mujahid
(Assigned)
CO 582 of 2003
With
CAN 7 of 2025
M/s Batliboi Limited
Vs.
M/s Citadel Instrumentation & Anr.
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sayan Ganguly,
Ms. Atasi Sarkar,
Ms. Meghna Dhur
...for the petitioner
Mr. Sandipan Pal
...for the opposite party no.1
Mr. Sirsanya Bandhopadhyay,
Mr. Debangshu Dinda
...for the opposite party no.2
1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted on instructions that petitioner is ready to deposit the actual award amount subject to the execution proceedings being stayed.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/claimant states that the award is of 2003 and the petitioner has been enjoying the interim stay granted by this court. Learned counsel submits that petition itself is not maintainable and insists that the petitioner may be directed to deposit that entire 2 award amount along with interest as directed by the facilitation council.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, West Bengal Industry Facilitation Council also submits that the petition itself is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that against the award, the petitioner instead of filing any petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed the present petition, which itself is not maintainable.
4. The perusal of the record reveals a chequered history. The petition was filed and initially an interim stay was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 26th June, 2003. The petition thereafter was dismissed in default on two occasions and was restored. The petitioner is enjoying the interim stay and has not paid any single money out of the award amount. The court considers that any further adjournments or extension of interim order would be against the interest of justice.
5. The court is bound to balance the interest of the parties. The question of maintainability of the petition is apparently looming large on the face of it. The petitioner should actually deposit the entire awarded amount along with at least nationalized bank interest rate so as to protect itself from the execution proceedings.
3
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is asked to pay the amount along with interest it would be a huge amount. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner/company is not in a good state of affairs.
7. In the circumstances, let petitioner deposit a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court in the name of the opposite party no.1/claimant for a period of six months.
8. Let the matter be listed on 28th July, 2025 at 2.30 p.m. for final hearing of the revision petition.
9. Both the parties are also directed to file brief written submissions not exceeding three pages along with the judgments they want to rely upon with a copy to the other side.
10. After the deposit of bank guarantee, the learned trial court shall defer the execution proceedings beyond the date fixed by this Court.
11. Accordingly, CAN 7 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)