Calcutta High Court
State Of West Bengal And Anr vs Dilip Kumar Saha on 9 August, 2021
ODC-1
ORDER SHEET
APO No. 95 of 2021
With
AP No. 89 of 2015
IA No. GA/1/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR SAHA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date: 9th August, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Appearance:
Mr. Kishore Datta, Advocate General
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Mondal, Adv.
Ms. Antara Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Utpol Bose Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarajit Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Sudip Bose, Adv.
The Court:- We admit the appeal. Considering the urgency pleaded,
we propose to hear out the appeal, dispensing with all formalities.
As the respondent is represented by learned counsel, issuance and
service of the notice of appeal is dispensed with.
We direct advocate-on-record for the appellants to prepare an
informal paper book and file it in Court by 23rd August, 2021, serving a copy
thereof on the respondent at least three days prior to the date fixed for
hearing of the appeal.
List the appeal for hearing on 31st August, 2021.
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge has
allowed the respondent's application to withdraw Rs.1.50 crores deposited by
the appellants with the learned Registrar, Original Side, upon furnishing a
bank guarantee for the said amount. This deposit was made by the
appellants in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, to obtain stay of execution of the award.
Learned Advocate General submits that this kind of variation of
security by the court cannot be done and that he would like to argue this
point in the appeal.
On the other hand, Mr. Bose learned senior advocate for the
respondent contends that only a portion of the awarded amount had been
secured by the appellants to obtain stay of the execution of the impugned
award. Furnishing of a bank guarantee by the respondent tantamounts to
replacement of one security by another and that the learned trial court was
justified in passing this order. He says that the impugned order should not
be stayed.
A legal issue is sought to be argued by the learned Advocate General.
This is not an appeal which can be dismissed at the threshold. It has to be
heard out. Pending hearing, if the money is taken out by the respondent, the
appeal would become infructuous.
In that view of the matter, we direct the learned Registrar, Original
Side, of this Court to retain the deposit of Rs.1.50 crores made with him by
the appellants, until further orders.
If the respondent wants return of the bank guarantee, the same may
be returned to them.
Otherwise, the bank guarantee shall be retained by the learned
Registrar.
We limit the interim order till 15th September, 2021, so that there is
some compulsion to hear out the appeal within that period.
The stay application is disposed of by this order.
The allegations made in the stay petition, if any, are deemed not to
have been admitted by the respondent.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.)
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J)
cs.
