Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Kitply Industries Limited on 15 September, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OCD-3
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Commercial Appellate Division
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/217/2025
WITH
AP-COM/489/2025
IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
VERSUS
KITPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 15th September, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Prithwish Roy Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Debomita Sadhu, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suman Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumanta Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Sk. Saad Nafisul Islam, Adv.
...for the respondent
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated July 2, 2025 passed on an application filed by the appellant herein
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appellant claims to have lent and advanced huge sums of
money to the respondent, in the region of around Rs.130 crores. The
appellant says that presently a sum of about Rs.243 crores is due to it from
the respondent. In view of there being an arbitration clause in the loan
agreement between the parties, the appellant approached the Learned Single
Judge with the Section 9 application for interim relief.
The Learned Judge secured the claim of the appellant to the extent
of injuncting the respondent from dealing with the mortgaged properties and
company shares that were pledged to secure the loan in question. The
Learned Judge did not grant other prayers made in the Section 9
application. The Learned Judge disposed of the application.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner before the Learned Judge has come
up by way of this appeal.
The contention of the appellant is that the appellant should have
been permitted to press the other prayers. The application should not have
been disposed of without granting that opportunity to the appellant.
Mr. Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant,
suggests that the matter be remanded to the Learned Single Judge for being
heard out after exchange of affidavits so that the appellant/petitioner has
the opportunity of praying for other interim orders. To this course of action,
Mr. Banerji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, does not
have any objection.
Accordingly, without touching the merits of the case and leaving all
points open, we resurrect the Section 9 application and request the Learned
Single Judge to decide the same after exchange of affidavits.
The respondent will be at liberty to file its affidavit-in-opposition
within two weeks after Puja vacation (November 7, 2025). Reply thereto, if
any, be filed within two weeks thereafter (November 21, 2025).
The parties will be at liberty to mention the matter before the
Learned Single Judge for hearing after exchange of affidavits.
The interim order that is in operation shall continue till December
15, 2025 or until further orders of the Learned Single Judge, whichever is
earlier.
Mr. Bose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant,
submits that the findings of the Learned Single Judge in Paragraphs 10 and
11 of the impugned order could not have been arrived at as there was no
material in support thereof. We say nothing on that count and only put the
submission on record.
The appeal and the application stand disposed of.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
R.Bhar
