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 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development ... vs Bengal Unitech Universal Siliguri ... on 16 August, 2023

Author: I. P. Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      In appeal from its
           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    (Commercial Division)



                        IA No. GA 1 of 2023
                       APOT No. 262 of 2023
                                with
                         EC No. 91 of 2023
            Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority
                               Versus
          Bengal Unitech Universal Siliguri Projects Ltd.
                         IA No. GA 1 of 2023
                         IA No. GA 2 of 2023
                        APO No. 118 of 2023
                                 with
                          EC No. 91 of 2023
                      Terai Rea Company Ltd.
                                Versus
         Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority & Ors.




Before:
The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI
            And
The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Date: 16th August 2023

                                                            Appearance:
                                    Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Advocate
                                              Mr. K. R. Thaker, Advocate
                                            Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Advocate
                                       Mr. Rittick Chowdhury, Advocate
                                          Mr. Niladri Banerjee, Advocate
                                           Soumyajyoti Nandy, Advocate
                                       Mr. Deepankar Thakur, Advocate
                                     for the appellant in APO 118/2023
                                                  Mr. S. N. Mookherjee,
                                                  Ld. Advocate General
                                                         & Sr. Advocate
                                             Mr. Anirban Ray, Advocate
                                              Mr. Raja Saha, Advocate
                                          Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate
                                        Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Advocate
                                                               for SJDA
                                      Mr. Sourjyo Mukherjee, Advocate
                                            Mr. Ashish Shal, Advocate
                                                   for respondent no.1

Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ahin Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Advocate Mr. Suddha Satva Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Advocate Mr. Rajdeep Mantha, Advocate for SLRL Agency 2 The Court: Order in terms of prayer (a) of the stay petition, subject to the point of maintainability raised by Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing for SlRl Agency Private Limited that having consented to the passing of the impugned judgment and order, the appellant is estopped from preferring this appeal.

The appeal (APOT 262 of 2023) and the stay petition (IA No. GA 1 of 2023) are to appear alongwith APO No. 118 of 2023 with IA No. GA 1 of 2023 and IA No. GA 2 of 2023 appearing as serial no. 5 of today's list on, 29th August 2023.

Leave is given to the appellant in APO No. 118 of 2023 to file an additional memorandum of appeal by 25th August 2023 and serve a copy thereof on the respondents in that appeal.

Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 22nd August 2023. Reply, if any, may be filed by 28th August 2023.

In this appeal Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority is the judgment-debtor before the learned trial judge in the execution proceedings. Sale of the subject property has more or less been confirmed in favour of Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate's client, SLRL Agency Private Limited, at a consideration of Rs.400 crores.

We note that the reserve price as fixed by the court was Rs.322 crores. No offer of or above the reserve price was initially received. Thereafter the court accepted the offer of SLRL Agency.

The short point canvassed by the learned Advocate General is that in accepting the bid of SLRL Agency the usual procedure of conducting sale in execution was not followed by the court. Bids were not invited after wide advertisement or accepted after holding an auction.

3

Prima facie it appears to us that no higher offer was available before the court or could be available in the reasonable contemplation of the learned judge.

However, considering the legal point taken we have to give a chance to the appellant to justify their case.

For the time we grant an opportunity to the appellant to bring to this court an offer higher than Rs.400 crores on the returnable date. If they succeed in doing so, the court might consider their case further.

(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose