Calcutta High Court
Godrej Projects Development Limited vs G. S. Niketan Pvt. Ltd on 3 September, 2018
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
O-28 ORDER SHEET
A.P. No. 591 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Versus
G. S. NIKETAN PVT. LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 3rd September, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Saubhi Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. I. Hasan, Adv.
... for the respondent.
The Court : In this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a Special Officer for depositing the entire consideration money received by it from the respondent under the agreement dated July 30, 2016 towards transfer of various units of the building at Plot No. XI, Block EP & GP in Sector V, Salt Lake City, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091 together with car parking spaces.
It is the case of the petitioner that in view of its lessor SIMOCO Telecommunication (South Asia) Limited (in short "SIMOCO") has been unsuccessful to obtain the requisite permission from WEBEL Telecommunications Industries Limited (in short 'WEBEL') to implement the said agreement dated July 30, 2016, 2 it is liable to refund the amount of Rs.6,52,00,000/- to the respondent. The respondent has, however, not accepted the offer of the petitioner for refund of the said amount of Rs.6,52,00,000/-.
From the documents disclosed in the application, it appears that the disputes between the parties herein have their origin in the revocation of the power of attorney granted by SIMOCO in favour of the present petitioner, which is the subject matter of the dispute pending in adjudication before a learned Arbitrator.
Considering the facts of the case, I find that before passing any order in this application, an opportunity should be granted to the respondents to file its affidavit-in-opposition to this application.
Accordingly, let the respondent file its affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks from date; reply, if any, thereto be filed within a week thereafter.
Let this application appear, under the heading 'Arbitration Motion(Adj.) Sec. 9' three weeks hence.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) mg