Calcutta High Court
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Alias on 12 February, 2025
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
OCD-8
ORDER SHEET
AO-COM/6/2024
WITH
AP/741/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY ALIAS
ASHOK KUMAR RAM SABADH CHAUDHURY AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Date : 12th February, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.
Ms. Sormi Dutta, Adv.
...for the defendant
1. In an application for setting aside of the award, an initial
objection was raised by the appellant with regard to the
maintainability of the said application on the ground that the
time to challenge the award had expired.
2. The learned Single Judge on considering Section 3 and Section
31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was of the view
that in the event of any doubt being created with regard to the
2
service of the award upon the award-debtor and in view of the
stringent provisions regarding the period within which an award
can be challenged, the Court would require strict compliance of
delivery of a signed copy of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal
and since the appellant in the instant case has failed to
conclusively establish service of the award upon the
respondents, thereby triggering off the period of the limitation,
the initial objection as to the maintainability of the said
application was overruled.
3. The learned Single Judge has also drawn a distinction between
Section 3 and Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 to hold that Section 3 concerns service of notices by the
parties whereas Section 31 imposes a duty upon the Arbitrator
to deliver a signed copy of the award. The learned Single Judge
was of the view that delivery of the award by the arbitral tribunal
is not conclusively established.
4. Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the award-holder has submitted that the learned Single Judge
has failed to take into consideration a Division Bench judgment
in Magma Fincorp Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. reported in
(2018) 1 CHN 391 where this issue has been conclusively
decided. However, it is fairly submitted that the order under
challenge is not an appellable order.
5. The application for setting aside of the award is yet to be
decided.
6. The appellant shall be at liberty to raise this issue after the
disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. We are not inclined to interfere with the order as we are for the
view that the said order is not appellable under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
8. With the aforesaid observation, AO-COM/6/2024 is disposed of.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.)
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
bp/R.Bhar
