Calcutta High Court
Lifeline Vincom Private Limited vs Nil Kantha Saha on 21 March, 2025
OCD-2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Commercial Division)
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC-COM/511/2024
IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025
LIFELINE VINCOM PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
NIL KANTHA SAHA
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Date: 21st March, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Kanchan Jaju, Adv.
. ...for the decree holder.
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Dipika Banu, Adv.
...for the judgment debtor
Mr. Soumyo Roy, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv.
...for the applicant in GA-COM/1/2025
1. Affidavit of Service as filed today on behalf of the decree holder be taken
on record.
2. In course of his submission, Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the decree holder, at the very outset, has handed over printout
of statements of accounts as received by the learned Advocate-on-record
by the decree holder from the Central Bank of India, Lake Town Branch,
and Punjab National Bank, Sreebhumi (North 24-Parganas) Branch,
pursuant to the order passed by the Court on February 14, 2025.
3. Let those two printouts be taken on record.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that from the printouts of the said
statement of accounts, it would reveal that there is no sufficient bank
balance in those two accounts particulars of which have been mentioned
2
in paragraph no.14 of the order dated February 14, 2025, and therefore,
the amount of money lying with those two bank accounts are not
sufficient to satisfy the decree as passed in favour of the decree holder.
5. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Banerjee that an appropriate order be
passed directing the judgment debtor to file his affidavit of assets and to
be present before this Court to face examination on such affidavit of
assets.
6. Ms. Dipika Banu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the judgment
debtor undertakes to file Vakalatnama within a week from today since
on account of indisposition of the judgment debtor, the Vakalatnama in
favour of Ms. Dipika Banu, could not be executed.
7. In view of such, liberty is given to Ms. Dipika Banu, learned Advocate to
file Vakalatnama on behalf of the judgment debtor in the Department. In
the event such Vakalatnama is filed, Department is directed to
incorporate the said Vakalatnama with the instant file.
8. Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the judgment debtor
draws attention of this Court to the order dated February 14, 2025. It is
submitted by Mr. Mitra that from paragraph nos.13 to 14 of the said
order, it would reveal that the immovable properties and the bank
accounts are lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
9. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Mitra that at the earliest opportunity he
intends to file an application challenging the maintainability of the
instant execution petition.
10. In view of such, liberty is given to the judgment debtor to file appropriate
application in terms of the observation made hereinabove after serving a
copy of the same to the learned Advocate-on-record for the decree
holder.
3
11. Let the matter be listed on April 25, 2025, under the same heading.
12. On the adjourned date, the judgment debtor is directed to file affidavit as
to assets.
GA-COM/1/2025
13. This is an application at the instance of one Lata Saha, wife of Anindya
Saha, who made a prayer before this Court for leave to intervene in the
instant execution application with a further prayer directing the decree
holders to delete the particulars of her property as has been mentioned
in the second Schedule of the registered deed of gift as has been
executed on 29th November, 2023.
14. In support of the application, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
intervener at the very outset took me to Annexure- B of the instant
application.
15. It is submitted that by executing the aforementioned registered deed of
gift, three shop rooms being S/1, S/2, and S/3 having total covered area
of 402 sq. ft. (approx) in premises no.161/1, Dakshindari Road, Ground
Floor, P.S.- Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 have been gifted to her by her
mother-in-law who is the wife of the present judgment debtor.
16. At this juncture, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
judgment debtor draws attention of this Court to paragraph no.13 of the
order dated February 14, 2025 as passed by this Court.
17. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that the factum of the aforementioned
ownership in respect of three shop rooms had not been brought to the
notice of this Court while moving injunction application by the decree
holder.
4
18. It is, thus, submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in terms
of the prayers as made in the instant application.
19. This Court has carefully considered the materials as placed before this
Court in support of the instant application. It appears to this Court that
prima facie materials have placed before this Court that the proposed
intervener is the owner of shop room nos. S/1, S/2. S/3 at premises no.
161/1, Dakshindari Road, Ground Floor, P.S.-Lake Town, Kolkata-
700048. On perusal of the paragraph no.13 of the order dated February
14, 2025, it appears to this Court that this Court injuncted the
respondent/judgment debtor from dealing with the premises no. 161/1,
Dakshindari Road, Ground Floor, P.S.-Lake Town, Kolkata-700048.
20. This Court, thus, finds there is no injunction order as against the
present intervener since the injunction order has been passed
restraining the judgment debtor/respondent in respect of the
aforementioned premises from dealing with the property. This Court
considers that the said injunction order does not bind the present
intervener.
21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court, thus, finds that
intervention of the present petitioner i.e. Ms. Lata Saha, in the instant
case is not at all necessary for the present.
22. Accordingly, GA-COM/1/2025 is rejected.
23. However, liberty is given to the present intervener to approach this Court
in the event occasion so arises.
24. GA-COM/1/2025 is thus disposed of.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
S. A.
AR (CR)
