Calcutta High Court
Lakshman Prasad Agarwal vs Neogrowth Credit Private Limited on 12 July, 2021
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
ODC - 10
ORDER SHEET
AP 280 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
LAKSHMAN PRASAD AGARWAL
VERSUS
NEOGROWTH CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 12TH JULY, 2021.
Appearance :
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Adv.
Mr. R. Chowdhury, Adv.
For the petitioner
Mr. Javed K. Sanwarwala, Adv.
For the respondent
The Court : The petitioner (respondent in a arbitration proceeding) has challenged an order dated 25th May, 2021 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in this application Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner places communication dated 28th April, 2021 from the Arbitrator to the petitioner by which a hearing to be held on 25th May, 2021 was intimated together with the fact that the said hearing would be conducted on two virtual mode. The impugned order dated 25th May, 2021 however, records that the said order was passed in an application filed by the 2 respondent herein (claimant in the arbitration proceeding) under Section 17 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed on 4th March, 2021for interim relief. According to Counsel, the said application was not served on the petitioner despite the petitioner furnishing its address etc. to the Arbitrator by a letter dated 5th April, 2021. It is also submitted that by the impugned order, the respondent was permitted to remove the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner from the possession of the petitioner. A Receiver was also appointed over the seized property and the respondent was granted necessary police help for taking symbolic possession of the goods mentioned in the schedule. The petitioner was further restrained from alienating his property.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent takes a preliminary objection to the effect that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the arbitration has commenced in Bombay.
The preliminary objection is kept open. This Court is of the prima facie view that there is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice as evident from the materials disclosed in the petition. When the Arbitrator informed the parties by a letter dated 20th April, 2021 that the next date of hearing would be 25th May, 2021, the impugned order could certainly not have been passed on 20th April, 2021. The impugned order clearly mentions in the second paragraph that the interim application was taken up for hearing on 20th April, 2021 and that the respondent failed to appear despite notice. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner 3 was not represented when the interim application was taken up for hearing, under no circumstances could the order have been passed on the date when notice was given to the parties to appear on a subsequent date.
The order impugned is also of a drastic nature. Although, the respondent was permitted to take symbolic possession of the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner, the respondent was permitted to remove the same from the possession of the petitioner. It may be noted that the petitioner is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and the respondent's office is also located within the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the above, there shall be an order, pending affidavits, in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The interim order dated 25th May, 2021 shall be stayed for a period of four weeks from date.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a week; affidavit-in-reply be filed within a week thereafter.
List this matter after two weeks.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) S.De