Calcutta High Court
Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolkata vs Haldia Bulk Terminals Pvt. Ltd on 25 July, 2016
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
APO No. 379 of 2014 GA No. 20 of 2016 GA No. 1338 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata Versus Haldia Bulk Terminals Pvt. Ltd.
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI Date: 25th July 2016 Appearance:
Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Ld. Advocate General Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. K. K. Pandey, Advocate Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Advocate for the plaintiff Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prithviraj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Devajyoti Bhattacharya Mr. Surajit Sen, Advocate Ms. Nairita Datta Chowdhury, Advocate for the defendant The Court: Very fairly Mr. Jishnu Saha for the applicant in GA No. 1338 of 2016 submits that his client will not press this application. Accordingly the same is dismissed as withdrawn without the Court having gone into the merits of the case and keeping all points on merits open before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Learned Advocate General with regard to the application of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata (GA No. 20 of 2016) submits that the said application seeks a modification of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 13th June 2014 and that the prayer for modification should be made before it.
I find much substance in this contention and relegate the Advocate General's client to such remedy, if any available before the Arbitral Tribunal.
But it does appear to me prima facie that unless the real disputes between the parties are resolved, not much headway can be made at the interim stage. This is because the claimant in the Arbitral Tribunal claims that there is no lien of Port Trust on the machinery and that they are entitled to remove and exploit 2 them commercially wherever they like without furnishing any security and without any interference. On the other hand, it is the contention of Kolkata Port Trust that they have a lien on this machinery and that they should be expeditiously sold to liquidate their dues. Furthermore, the claimant, according to the learned Advocate General, is a special purpose company, the sole business of which was to render service in Kolkata Port. These machinery are the only assets of the company and if they are allowed to dispose of them the substratum of the company would be destroyed. Mr. Saha denies this by submitting that since its incorporation the memorandum of association of the company has been amended.
In between there is Axis Bank, which is not a party. The Port objects to any sum being appropriated by them unless their rights are adjudicated.
The members of the Arbitral Tribunal are very eminent jurists and have adorned the bench of highest Court of this country. I experience the greatest amount of trepidation to make any direction upon the Tribunal. I very humbly request it to conclude this arbitration proceeding by making a final award by 31st December 2016. This, I believe, will put an end to this continuing controversy between the parties.
The interim order dated 19th January 2015 is confirmed and will continue till the publication of the award.
With the above observations these applications are disposed of accordingly. All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) R. Bose AR(CR)