Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Yasser Arafat on 20 September, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
4 20.9.2017
FMA 1279 of 2017
(FMAT 793 of 2017)
gd with
CAN 7753 of 2017
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Vs.
Yasser Arafat
Mr. Pijush Biswas
Mr. Shibnath Bhattacharya
Mr. Abhishek Bhattacharjee
..for the Appellant
Mr. Priyankar Saha
..for the Respondent
The appeal is directed against an ex parte ad interim order passed on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The primary ground urged by the appellant is that the respondent herein completely suppressed the fact that the respondent had instituted a previous suit, obtained an interlocutory order therein, failed to comply with the condition imposed by the court and suffered the interim order being vacated.
There is a distinction between an appeal and a petition for vacating an ex parte order. The appellant must demonstrate in an appeal of such nature that the petition was per se demurrable and no order could have been passed thereon. Allegations on facts not evident from the petition on which the order was passed cannot, ordinarily, be taken into account in course of such an 2 appeal.
Since the appellant says that the appellant has applied for vacating the order impugned dated May 12, 2017, the operation of the order dated May 12, 2017 is limited to six weeks from date or its earlier vacating by the court below. The court below is requested to ensure that the application is disposed of within such time.
It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been gone into and it will be open to the court below to consider whether the ad interim order should be vacated or continued.
FMA 1279 of 2017 and CAN 7753 of 2017 are disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3