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 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Aradhana Investments Limited vs Srawan Kumar Himatsingka on 18 January, 2023

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

ORDER SHEET
                                                                                 OD-9


                          IA No. GA/1/2023
                                  In
                             CS/290/2022
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                            ORIGINAL SIDE


                    ARADHANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
                               VERSUS
                     SRAWAN KUMAR HIMATSINGKA

 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
 Date: 18th January, 2023.

                                                                           Appearance:
                                                    Mr. Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, Adv.
                                                                Mr. Ayon Dutta, Adv.
                                                    Mr. Pradip Kumar Sarawagi, Adv.
                                                          For the plaintiff/ petitioner.

                                                             Mr. Tilak Bose, Sr. Adv.
                                                            Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Saunak Mitra, Adv.
                                                          Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Saubhick Choudhury, Advd.
                                                            Ms. Tapasika Bose, Adv.
                                                      For the defendant/respondent.

The Court :- This an application by the plaintiff/petitioner, inter alia, for judgment upon admission with a further prayer of injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from operating two bank accounts, the particulars whereof are provided in Annexure-B to the application. The plaintiff/petitioner says that a sum of Rs. 1 (one) crore was given as financial accommodation to the defendant/respondent repayable with agreed interest. By way of Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) the principal sum of Rs. 1 (one) crore was given to the defendant in four tranches starting from 24th March, 2017 till 28th March, 2 2017. The plaintiff/petitioner further says that the defendant/respondent initially paid interest at the agreed rate against which tax was deducted at source (TDS). Subsequently, the defendant/respondent failed to pay the interest as also the principal despite demand. The defendant/respondent made over a cheque for Rs. 1 (one) crore on 1st October, 2020, but the same on being presented was dishonoured. The plaintiff/petitioner relies upon the documents to show the admission of liability and failure to pay the same and further submits that the issuance of cheque was towards discharged of such liability, which should be also construed as an admission on the part of the defendant/respondent. The plaintiff/petitioner, therefore, prays for judgment upon admission for a sum of Rs. 2,00,91,370/- comprising of the principal sum and accrued interest at the agreed rate calculated upto 6th December, 2022. The plaintiff/petitioner also seeks an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from operating the two bank accounts.

On behalf of the defendant/respondent it is submitted that the defendant/respondent is undergoing treatment in London. It appears from the medical document shown to the Court that the defendant/respondent is undergoing chemotherapy. It is also submitted that the defendant/respondent has several defence including the maintainability of the suit. The transaction being the subject matter of the suit according to the defendant has given rise to a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2[c] of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly in view of the fact that the plaintiff is a Non-Banking Fund Institute (NBFI). It is further submitted that the decree on the basis of 3 admission as prayed for cannot be granted without affording the defendant/respondent an opportunity to disclose its stand on affidavit.

After hearing the parties, considering the materials on record and taking into account the admitted receipt of the money followed by payment of interest, deduction of TDS and issuance of a cheque which has been dishonoured I was inclined to restrain the defendant from operating the two bank accounts, but considering the fact that the defendant is severely ill and is undergoing extensive medical treatment thereby requiring huge money which may be transmitted through the bank accounts the operation whereof is sought to be restrained leading to money crunch for the medial treatment, I for the time being do not pass such an order of injunction. It will be, however, open for the plaintiff/petitioner to seek such order at the subsequent stage.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 7th February, 2023. Affidavit-in- Reply thereto, if any, be filed by 20th February, 2023.

Let this matter appear in the list on 22nd February, 2023 under the heading "Adjourned Motion".

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) snn