Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satyajit Sarkar & Ors vs M/S. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 30 September, 2013
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
36 30.09. F.M.A.T. 1245 of 2013
ns 2013
Satyajit Sarkar & Ors.
- Versus -
M/s. Cygnus Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
Mr. Debangshu Basak,
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari,
Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tewari .... For the appellants.
Mr. Joydeep Kar,
Mr. Anirban Kar,
Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty . For the respondent no.1.
Mr. Ashis Kumar Sanyal, Mr. Sanjib Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Kuntal Banerjee, Mr. Biswanth Bhowmik, Mr. Lalratan Mondal . For the respondent nos.2 to 4.
Re: CAN 10243 of 2013 & CAN 10250 of 2013 The appellants are not parties to the arbitration proceeding, hence they were not also parties to the application made under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Yet they complain of the order passed on September 10, 2013. They pray for leave to prefer an appeal. Considering the backdrop discussed hereinafter, leave is granted.
The facts would depict, the appellants are the lessee in respect of 49 cuttahs of land. They are running a saw mill.
Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, the developer for another 27 cuttahs belonging to the same landlord, would inform this Court, the lease expired by efflux of time.
Mr. Ashis Sanyal, learned senior counsel appears for the landlord / respondent nos.2 to 4.
It is settled proposition of law, the order made under Section 9 would only preserve the rights of the parties under the arbitration agreement. Admittedly, the appellants are not parties to the agreement. No order passed under Section 9 touching the right of a third party, would be sustainable in law.
Mr. Kar would submit, 49 cuttahs land is demarcated. 27 cuttahs is also demarcated. He has no quarrel with 27 cuttahs of 2 land for the time being.
Mr. Tewari apprehends, if boundary is put for 27 cuttahs, he might be landlocked.
Mr. Kar assures, ingress and egress of the appellants would not be disturbed as their land is already demarcated.
We have gone through the order. The order does not give reason. It is a non-speaking order passed at the ad-interim stage. Since the respondent against whom the order was passed, does not make any complain, we do not make any comment on the same.
We would abundantly make it clear, the possession of the appellants must not be disturbed in the guise of implementation of the judgment and order impugned that would have no impact on the appellants who are admittedly outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The appeal along with connected applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
( Banerjee, J. ) ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J. )