Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

The West Bengal Small Industries ... vs Kaushalya Infrastructure Development ... on 9 September, 2019

Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty

Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty

ODC-6
                                  AP 515 of 2019
                                       With
                                  EC 278 of 2019

                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE



    THE WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD (WBSIDCL)
                                 Versus
         KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD (KIDCO)


      BEFORE:
      The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

Date : 9th September, 2019.

Appearance:

Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. S. Chatterjee, Adv.
Re.: AP No.515 of 2019 The Court: Considering the averments made in the application, I am inclined to accept the explanation put forth by the applicant for admitting this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996") after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the award but within the extended period of thirty days under the proviso to Sub-section(3) of Section 34 of the said Act.
Accordingly, the application being AP No.515 of 2019 filed by the award-debtor is admitted.
2
Re.: EC No.278 of 2019
In view of the provisions of Section 87 of the Act of 1996 coming into force with effect from August 30, 2019 when the arbitral proceeding in the instant case commenced before October 23, 2015 with the admission of the present application and the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 has been admitted by this Court, the execution application being EC No.278 of 2019 is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner filing a fresh execution application subject to the result of the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
Interim order passed in this application, if any, stands vacated. The Receiver appointed, if any, stands discharged.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) s.pal