Calcutta High Court
Dilip Kumar Chatterjee vs State Of West Bengal on 4 October, 2021
OD 14+15
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC 459 of 2018
IA GA 2 of 2019
GA 4 of 2021
DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
WITH
AP 557 of 2012
IA GA 1 of 2018
(Old GA 2703 of 2018)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 4th October, 2021.
APPEARANCE:
In EC 459 of 2018:
Mr. Priyankar Saha,Adv.
Mr. Amritam Mondal,Adv.
Mr. Hemant Tiwari,Adv.
...for the decree-holder.
In EC 459 of 2018:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury,Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Arindam Mondal,Adv.
2
...for State
In AP 557 of 2012:
Mr. Priyankar Saha,Adv.
Mr. Amritam Mondal,Adv.
Mr. Hemant Tiwari,Adv.
...for respondent
In AP 557 of 2012:
Mr. Paritosh Sinha,Adv.
The Court:- These matters are taken up for hearing.
The execution petition is for execution of an award dated 25 th April, 2012.
An application, being AP No. 557 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has also been filed by the judgment-debtor/State of West
Bengal which is also appearing in the list. GA No. 2703 of 2018 now renumbered
as GA No. 1 of 2018 is an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay of the award dated 25th April, 2012.
It is submitted on behalf of the decree-holder that there is also an
interlocutory application in the pending execution petition being GA No. 4 of
2021 for crystalisation of the entire amount payable by the judgment-debtor to
the decree-holder. However, such application is neither in the list nor are the
papers in Court. These matters have been heard by different Benches.
Mr. Saha appearing on behalf of the decree-holder submits that the decree
should be executed since there is no stay obtained by the judgment-debtor. On
the other hand, Mr. Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtor
submits that all the applications should be taken up together. It is also
submitted by Mr. Chowdhury that the matters have been heard by previous
Benches but the hearing had not been concluded. Mr. Chowdhury submits that
the award is an unreasoned award and is liable to be set aside forthwith.
I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and I am of the
view that In the light of the application for stay of the award, the questions inter
alia which have to be gone into by this Court are as follows:
(a) The form of security which the judgment-debtor should be directed to
secure and the extent of the same.
(b) whether the judgment-debtor has a right to seek for withdrawal of the
money during the pendency of the applications under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In view of the aforesaid, let these matters appear as "Specially Fixed
Matters" on the 9th of November, 2021.
It is made clear that all the applications will be heard together but the
application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
for stay of the award would be heard first. The parties are directed to
positively file their Written Notes of Submissions on the returnable date. All
the applications including the application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being AP No. 557 of 2012 should
appear on the adjourned date.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
s.chandra
