Calcutta High Court
Leonine Estates Pvt. Ltd. And Ors vs Ritman Infra Ltd. And Ors on 17 September, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OD-22
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL AND CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP/491/2021
LEONINE ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
VS
RITMAN INFRA LTD. AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 17th September, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Bimalendu Das, Adv.
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.
Ms. Shomrita Das, Adv.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Sikder, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Sompurna Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Saheli Dey, Adv.
... for respondent nos. 2 to 7.
The Court: It is a matter of concern that the learned arbitrator who appears before this Court has submitted a letter indicating that the arbitral records have been destroyed. The records were absolutely necessary for the Court to adjudicate the pending application for setting aside the award. According to the petitioner, the making of the award was perpetuated by fraud and corruption. The award was passed by adopting the principles governing Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the admission made on behalf of the petitioners, an award upon admission was passed and several directions were issued upon the petitioners to carry out certain obligations which, according to the petitioners, are detrimental to their interest.
It is next contended that the notice of the proceeding had never been received by the petitioners. Mr. G. D. Sharma who represented the petitioners 2 had been removed prior to commencement of the arbitral proceeding. He did not have any authority to represent the petitioners. The notice of the arbitration was served at the address of Mr. G. D. Sharma and not the petitioners.
The execution of the agreement is also denied by the petitioners on the ground that the same was perpetuated by fraud. The agreement giving rise to the proceeding was also a creation of fraud.
This Court had already disposed of the application under section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon recording an undertaking by the respondents that they will not proceed with the execution.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Chakraborty's request that a further injunction should be passed is not accepted. When the execution has been stayed, it means that the award-holders cannot proceed with the enforcement of the award and whatever emanates from the award also, cannot be enforced.
A copy of the letter of the learned Arbitrator addressed to the Registrar, Original Side, Calcutta is taken on record.
In view of the elaborate hearing which has been held and in view of the letter submitted by the learned Arbitrator, let the matter be marked as 'heard in part'.
Mr. Dutta submits that he shall collect documents and file a compilation.
Let the matter appear after the vacation.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) S.Mandi/S.Kumar