Calcutta High Court
Laxmi Pat Surana vs Pantaloon Retail India Ltd & Ors on 2 April, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
OD-20 ORDER SHEET
A.P. No. 380 OF 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
LAXMI PAT SURANA
Versus
PANTALOON RETAIL INDIA LTD & ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 2nd April, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. L. P. Surana, in person.
Mr. Ranjan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. R. Mishra, Adv.
Ms. P. Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. R. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. D. Saha, Adv.
... for respondent 2 & 3.
Mr. Jayanta Mitra, sr. Adv.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. A. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. A. Panday, Adv.
Ms. Richa Goyal, Adv.
... for respondent no. 1 & 4.
The Court : Court is inclined to take up preliminary objection against maintainability of this arbitration petition for interim measure. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 had taken the point on submission that disputes are not arbitrable. Today he elaborates, disputes are not arbitrable since they relate to eviction of occupant in immovable property. Supreme Court in Himangni Enterprises V. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia reported in (2017) 10 SCC 706 as also AIR 2017 SC 5137 had considered its earlier judgment in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. V. SBI Home Finance Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 532 to widen scope of law declared 2 in Booz Allen(supra). He also relies on view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Fingertips Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dhanashree Electronics Ltd. (C.O. 3084 of 2009) available at 2011 SCC online Cal 4974.
Petitioner appearing in person refers to my order dated 20th February, 2019 in A.P. 812 of 2018 (Efcalon Tie Up Private Ltd. Versus Startrack Agency Pvt. Ltd.) whereby I had expressed view that Himangni (supra) does not widen scope of law declared in Booz Allen(supra). He also relies on judgment dated 28th February, 2019 of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 2402 of 2019 (Vidya Drolia & Ors. Versus Durga Trading Corporation) by which the question was referred to a larger Bench on view expressed, inter alia, in paragraph 21 therein to effect that it is clear Transfer of Property Act is silent on arbitrability, and does not negate arbitrability. Petitioner submits further, respondents' submissions have been that they are depositing rents with Union Bank of India and receiver appointed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) (III). He seeks disclosure of particulars regarding deposit. The submission is recorded for notice of respondents.
Adjournment is granted for said respondents to consider their position and make submissions on adjourned date. List on 11th April, 2019 marked at 2.00 p.m. (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) mg 3