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 0]

Calcutta High Court

Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Vansh Projects Services And Ors on 11 January, 2017

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

                                               ORDER SHEET

                                       AP No.569 of 2016
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                         ORIGINAL SIDE



                                 SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
                                             Versus
                                VANSH PROJECTS SERVICES AND ORS.


    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
    Date : 11th January, 2017.


                                              Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv. for the petitioner.
                                                      Ms. Arunima Lala Sengupta, Ms. T. Laha,
                                                               Advocates for the respondents.

The Court : There is a delay of 19 days in commencement of the arbitration proceedings which is condoned.

It appears that the Arbitrator although had entered upon reference on 20th December, 2016 but the first sitting was to be held on 20th February, 2017. It appears that the Arbitrator may be preoccupied with other works and may not proceed with the arbitration proceedings with utmost diligence. The petitioner seems to have no objection in the event the Arbitrator appointed and/or nominated by the petitioner is replaced.

Under such circumstances, Mr. Sakya Sen, Advocate, Bar Library Club is appointed as sole Arbitrator, who shall conclude the arbitration proceedings within a period of six months from the date of entering upon the reference. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to a consolidated remuneration of Rs.2 lakhs to be shared by the parties in equal measure. All other expenses of the arbitration shall be borne by the parties in equal measure.

The order of injunction passed on 16th August, 2016 stands confirmed.

2

This Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondents in not complying with the order 22nd September, 2016. In the event the possession of the second asset is not made to the Receiver within a week from date, it shall be construed that the respondents are interfering with the course of justice and appropriate proceeding shall be drawn up against the said respondents as it appears that the respondents are deliberately avoiding in complying with the order which is evident from the report filed by the Receiver. With regard to the third asset all necessary disclosures along with the documents are to be furnished by way of an affidavit on the returnable date. Mr. Surendra Kumar Agarwal, one of the partners of the respondent no.1 shall be personally present on the adjourned date.

The second report filed by the Receiver on 3rd January, 2017 is kept with the record. The Receiver shall be entitled to a further remuneration of 1200 GMs to be paid by the petitioner and shall be added to the claim in the pending arbitration proceeding.

The matter stands adjourned for two weeks.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) pa