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

APOT-133-2016 on 16 August, 2016

Author: Manjula Chellur

Bench: Manjula Chellur

                                   APOT 133 of 2016
                                  G.A.1297 of 2016
                                    E.C. 50 of 2005



                               IN THE HIGH COURT AT
                               Civil Appellate
                                     Original Side


                                    ASSOCIATED
                                          Versu
                                  THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL


   BEFORE:

   The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR

   The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE

   Date : 16th August, 2016.


              For the Appellant    : Mr. Sarajit Mitra, Advocate

              For the Respondent : Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr.Advocate with

Mr. D.Mondal, Advocate THE COURT : There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application.

In an execution proceeding the learned Judge permitted the decree-holder to withdraw the sum of money lying with the Receiver to the extent of Rs.75,24,085/- upon furnishing a bank guarantee for that amount. Being aggrieved, the decree-holder is before us in the present appeal.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge should not have passed a conditional order and should have permitted the decree-holder to withdraw the amount from the receiver unconditionally.

2

Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- State submits that an application under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is pending. The said application was filed before a wrong forum but an application has been filed for withdrawing the records from that Court for the purpose of filing the same in this Court.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge balanced the interest of both the parties and protected the interest of both the partie3s. If and in the event the respondent-State succeeds in the section 34 application and the award stands set aside, some protective order should be there for the State so that the money can be realised by the State from the decree-holder.

Accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal and the application are dismissed.

( MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.) ( ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) Rsg AR(CR)