Calcutta High Court
Middleton Trucking Services Llp ... vs Rohit Shroff And Anr on 27 April, 2021
OD 7
ORDER SHEET
IA GA 1 of 2021
CS 100 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
MIDDLETON TRUCKING SERVICES LLP AND ANR.
VS.
ROHIT SHROFF AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 27th April, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Anirban Ray,
Mr. Soumabho Ghose,
Mr. Soumalya Ganguli,
Mr. Sourav Roy,
Ms. Tiana Bhattacharya, Advs.
...for the plaintiffs
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee,
Mr. Arnab Sardar, Advs.
...for defendant no. 1
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
...for defendant no. 2
The Court: Plaint presented is admitted subject to scrutiny by the department.
Leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is granted. Leave under Order II Rule
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is granted.
In view of the plaintiffs seeking urgent interim relief, leave under Clause 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is granted.
In a suit for recovery of money from the defendants, the plaintiffs seek judgment
on admission and interim protection.
Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submits that, the plaintiffs were put
in possession of the immovable property belonging to the defendants as lessees. The
plaintiffs were constrained to pay sum in excess of Rs. 46 lakhs to the West Bengal
Financial Corporation Ltd. upon such financial institution seeking to take possession of
the immovable property concerned, in view of the default of the defendant in paying such
financial institution. He submits that the plaintiffs thereafter negotiated with the
defendants for purchasing the immovable property concerned. However, although the
defendants initially agreed to convey the same, the defendants resiled from such
agreement. He submits that now the defendants are neither refunding the amount paid
by the plaintiffs on their account nor are they ready and willing to convey the property.
He draws the attention of the Court to the response issued by the defendant no. 2. He
submits that the defendants are likely to deal with the immovable property concerned
unless restrained.
Learned advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1 submits that the plaintiffs are
yet to pay the lease rental. He submits that, the sum of about 46 lakhs and odd is due
and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs and that, should a period of six months
time is granted, the same will be repaid. He submits that the defendant No. 1 will not
sell the immovable property but the defendant No. 1 should be allowed to mortgage the
immovable property.
Learned advocate appearing for the defendant no. 2 seeks adjournment on the
ground that he is yet to receive the cause papers.
The fact that, the plaintiffs are in possession of the immovable property belonging
to the defendants by virtue of lease granted is undisputed. It is the claim of the
defendant no. 1 that there are outstandings on account of lease rentals. The fact that,
the plaintiffs paid sum in excess of Rs. 46 lakhs on account of dues of the defendants to
the West Bengal Financial Corporation is also admitted. The amount is yet to be repaid
by the defendants. Apparently, there are disputes and differences between the
defendants. The defendants are partners of a partnership firm.
In such circumstances, at this stage it would be appropriate to restrain
defendants from creating any third party rights over and in respect of the immovable
property concerned without obtaining prior leave of the Court.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if
any, two weeks thereafter. List the application as an 'Adjourned Motion" six weeks hence
subject to any direction of the High Court with regard to listing of matters.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
TR/
