Emami Paper Mills Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The
2026 Latest Caselaw 861 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Emami Paper Mills Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The on 12 February, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OCD-1

                               ORDER SHEET

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                             EC-COM/384/2025
                           IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025

                       EMAMI PAPER MILLS LIMITED
                                   VS
               THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE
            VESSEL M V PH GIANG MINH IMO NO 9481623 AND ANR

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 12th February, 2026.

Appearance:

Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pranit Bag, Mr. Rohit Mukherji, Ms. Sristi Barman Roy, Mr. Satyaki Mitra, Adv.

Ms. Amani Kayan, Mr. Ratul Deb Banerjee, Advocates for the decree holder.

Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shaunak Mitra, (vc) Mr. Shubhrajyoti Mookerjee, Mr. Viraj Gupta, Ms. Sneha Goud, Adv.

Mr. Souvik Kundu, Advocates for award debtor no.2.

The Court: Affidavit-in-reply filed by the defendant no. 2 in GA-

COM/1/2025 is taken on record.

Two applications are taken up for consideration simultaneously since

the issues overlap. The execution application is by the plaintiff in an

admiralty suit inviting this Court to hold that the Arbitration Agreement

between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 has stood extinguished in view

of the settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, as to the

plaintiff's claim in the suit which culminated into a decree on the basis of

the terms of settlement. The application being GA-COM/1/2025 is under

Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the defendant no.

2 wherein the said defendant has invited the Court to prima facie hold that

the Arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 is in

existence and relegate the disputes and differences between the plaintiff and

the defendant no. 2 to arbitration.

In support of the application being GA-COM/1/2025, it is submitted

by the defendant no. 2 that a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff

and defendant no. 1, which was recorded in terms of the settlement which

forms part of the decree. In terms of such settlement, the suit was finally

decreed and the vessel which had been previously arrested was released. The

main contention of the defendant no. 2 is that the defendant no. 2 is neither

a party nor a signatory to the terms of settlement on the basis whereof the

decree was passed and, as such, the said decree does not bind the defendant

no. 2. The defendant no. 2 further contends that the claim of the plaintiff

against the defendant no. 2 was never adjudicated. It was on the own

volition of the defendant no. 1 that amounts were claimed by the plaintiff

accepted by the said defendant to which the plaintiff concurred resulting in

the decree. After the suit was settled between the defendant no. 1 and the

plaintiff the claim of the plaintiff in the suit stood satisfied. The defendant

no. 1 thereafter had issued a notice to release the settled amount from the

defendant no. 2 with a threat to initiate arbitration against the defendant no.

2 with regard to the purported claim, the defendant no. 1 has against the

defendant no. 2. The plaintiff has received the money as claimed in the suit

without adjudication of the liability of the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff

therefore cannot claim that the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff

and the defendant no. 2 stood extinguished in view of the settlement to

which the defendant no. 2 was neither a party nor a signatory. The right of

the defendant no. 2 was, therefore, never gone into or adjudicated at any

stage of the suit and, as such, the same is required to be gone into;

otherwise without any liability being fixed against the defendant no. 2, the

said defendant will be saddled with the liabilities in the form of the claim

made by the plaintiff in the suit which was accepted by the defendant no. 1

for the purpose of settlement.

On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that the description of

defendant no. 1 is the "Owners and parties interested in the vessel M V PH

GIANG MINH". The defendant no. 2 was and still is one of the parties

interested in the said vessel and, as such, cannot contend that the interest

of the defendant no. 2 was never represented while the defendant no. 1

entered into the terms of settlement with the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2

is bound by such decree and cannot re-open the same by way of arbitration.

The arguments, however, could not be completed. Let this matter

appear on 16th February, 2026.

The interim order without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the defendant no.2 in the application being GA-COM/1/2025 is extended till

31st March, 2026 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

S.Mandi