Sourav Chandidas Ganguly vs Percept Talent Management Ltd. & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 145 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET

                                                                         ODC-6
                           EC No. 543 of 2019
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                         COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                     SOURAV CHANDIDAS GANGULY
                               VERSUS
                PERCEPT TALENT MANAGEMENT LTD. & ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
  Date: 12th February, 2021.

  (Via Video Conference)
                                                                    Appearance:
                                                       Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.
                                                        Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                                          Ms. Manali Bose, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv.
                                                      Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.
                                                    Ms. Antara Choudhury, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Jishnujit Ray, Adv.
                                                For the petitioner/award-holder.

                                                        Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
                                                   Mr. Ranjit Kumar Basu, Adv.
                                            For the respondents/award debtors.

The Court :-The execution petition is taken up for consideration

subsequent to the order dated January 28, 2021.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the award-holder draws the

attention of the Court to an order dated August 26, 2009. He submits that, the

judgment debtors were required to create a fixed deposit, which the judgment

debtors did. He draws the attention of the Court to a letter dated September 19,

2009, which encloses a photocopy of a fixed deposit that, the judgment debtors

created. He draws the attention of the Court to the affidavit as to assets filed by

the judgment debtors. Such affidavit as to assets gives particulars of different

fixed deposit. He submits that, the award-holder is interested in the execution of

the award the maturity value of Rs.1,04,09,513.86 which appears from the

photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt annexed to the letter dated September 19,

2009 of the then Advocate on Record of the judgment debtors should be directed

to be made over to the award holder for the present.

Learned Advocate appearing for the judgment debtors relies upon 2019

SCC OnLine Cal 7293 (MSTC Limited-Versus-Krishna Coke (India) Private

Limited) and submits that, the affidavit of assets do not establish any movable

and immovable property of the judgment debtors to be within the jurisdiction of

this Hon'ble Court. He submits that, the Court should not exerciser any

jurisdiction in the execution of the award.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the award-holder draws the

attention of the Court to AIR 2016 Calcutta 293 (Srei Equipment and Finance

Pvt. Ltd.-Versus-Khyoda Apik and Ors.) and particularly to paragraph 45

thereof. He submits that, the judgment debtors cannot legitimately claim that,

the Court does not have jurisdiction since the fixed deposit was created pursuant

to an order passed by this Hon'ble Court.

By an order dated August 26, 2009, the judgment debtors were directed to

keep a sum of Rs. 97,31,786/- in a fixed deposit account of any bank of his

choice.

It appears that, the judgment debtors complied with such order and

created a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs. 97,31,786 with HDFC Bank, Mumbai.

The fixed deposit was created on September 17, 2009. The maturity date

was October 3, 2010. The maturity amount was Rs. 1,04,09,513.86.

The affidavit as to assets filed by the judgment debtors do not refer to this

fixed deposit at all. There are references to other fixed deposit in the affidavit as

to assets. It is not clear as what happened to the fixed deposit which the

judgment debtors of the then advocate on record informed the award-holder on

September 19, 2009.

Be that as it may, since the judgment debtors created a fixed deposit with

maturity value of Rs. 1, 04,09,513,86 pursuant to an order of this Hon'ble Court,

I am not minded to allow the judgment debtors to contend today that, such fixed

deposit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and that, such fixed

deposit cannot be directed to be made over to the award-holder by this Hon'ble

Court in execution of the award.

The fixed deposit was created pursuant to the order dated August 26, 2009

passed by this Court. The fixed deposit is obviously subject to any direction of

this Court. The award remains outstanding. The amount awarded in the award is

Rs. 14,49,91,000/-. The award-holder is entitled to interest in terms of the

award. The award-holder claims a sum in excess of Rs.36 crores from the

judgment debtors.

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the judgment

debtors to make over the sum of Rs. 1,04,09,513.86 being the maturity value of

the fixed deposit to the award-holder within seven days from date.

By the next date, the judgment debtors will file an affidavit dissolving with

documentary evidence as to how the judgment debtors dealt with the fixed

deposit which the then advocate on record for them informed the award-holder

subsequent to the date of maturity of the same.

List the execution petition on February 19, 2021 under the same heading.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)

snn.