Calcutta High Court
Kosc Industries Private Limited vs Lakhotia Infra Technologies Pvt. ... on 14 July, 2023
OCD-5
ORDER SHEET
AP/71/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Commercial Division)
KOSC INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
LAKHOTIA INFRA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 14th July, 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court: The petitioner before the Court is a supplier who supplied
certain construction material to the respondent over a period of time,
approximately eight months. The petitioner seeks interim orders in the form of
a direction on the respondent to provide security for the units which are
admittedly withheld by the respondent. The admission would be apparent from
mails exchanged between the parties on 14th July, 2020; the first by the
petitioner containing a chart of the amount pending from the respondent in
relation to the Naihati and fire station site on account of the material retained
by the respondent. The reply of the respondent on the same day admits to the
outstanding rent with a request to the petitioner to send a revised reasonable
fair rate in order to resolve the matter. The correspondence between the
parties and the admission made by the respondent in the mail were noted by
the Division Bench in its order dated 2nd March, 2023 in an appeal filed by the
petitioner where the Division Bench records the categorical stand of the
respondent that the short supply of material is the respondent's responsibility.
The Division Bench proceeded to pass an order restraining the respondent from
transferring or alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of the
material lying at the Naihati site disclosed by the petitioner in its e-mail of 14th
July, 2020 for a period of three months from the date of the order. The
Division Bench subsequently extended the interim order on 11th May, 2023.
The admitted facts are as follows. The petitioner supplied all the agreed
goods by 13th July, 2019 without any complaint raised by the respondent on
the quality of the material supplied. Some of the goods were returned by the
respondent on 22nd February, 2020. The calculation of the admitted rent due
from the respondent as per the purchase order and the fact that the
respondent used all the goods from July, 2019 to February, 2020 is also
without dispute. The outstanding principal sum of rent for July, 2019 to
February, 2020 that is unpaid rent from the respondent comes to
Rs.2,02,376.00. The amount of goods withheld as per the chart disclosed in
the mail of 14th July, 2020 translates to Rs.1,69,480.00. The total principal
amount due from the respondent to the petitioner as on date, adding these two
amounts would come to Rs.3,71,856.00.
The calculation in the chart prepared by the petitioner has been shared
with learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The respondent shall hence secure the amount of Rs.3,71,856.00 by way
of a cash deposit to be kept with the Registrar, Original Side within three weeks
from today. The Registrar will invest this amount in an interest bearing
account with a reputed Bank which is a constituent of the Reserve Bank of
India.
In passing this order, the Court has also considered the Supreme Court
decision in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi; (2021)6 SCC 418 and a
Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in J.P. Parekh & Son vs.
Naseem Qureshi in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.629/2021 on the
requirement of a defendant in an action for payment of money to disclose his
assets on oath and the power of the Court to demand security to ensure
satisfaction of any decree in appropriate circumstances. Both the decisions are
found to be relevant.
AP/71/2023 is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.)
bp.
