[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Dipankar Shaw And Anr vs Barsana Supply Network Pvt Ltd. And Ors on 11 March, 2026
OCD-10
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/752/2025
IA NO: GA-COM/1/2026
DIPANKAR SHAW AND ANR
VS
BARSANA SUPPLY NETWORK PVT LTD. AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 11th March, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Mondal, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Nandy, Adv.
Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Anand Jha, Adv.
Mr. Shankharit Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Adv.
...for the respondent
GA/1/2026
The Court: This is an application filed by the respondents seeking
recall of the order dated 7th January, 2026 passed by this Court, whereby
the respondents were directed to secure the claim of the petitioner by
depositing a sum of Rs.10 lakh by way of demand draft in favour of the
Registrar, Original Side, to remain deposited until constitution of the
arbitral tribunal or until further orders.
Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner
suppressed material facts regarding the alleged resignation of the
respondent from the respondent company and that the order dated
07.01.2026 was obtained by misrepresentation. It is further contended that
the Joint Venture Agreement contains clauses under which the respondents
were not duty-bound to refund the claims of the petitioner and that the said
agreement has been wrongly interpreted by the petitioner in order to secure
favourable order. It is further contended that the respondent no.4 was
unwell during the relevant period and could not properly instruct the
learned Counsel, as a result of which certain facts were not adequately
brought before the Court in his affidavit-in-opposition. On such grounds,
recall of the order is prayed for.
From the record it appears that the matter was listed on 22.09.2025,
when directions were issued for filing of an affidavit-in-opposition. Learned
Counsel for the respondents entered appearance on 10.11.2025. Time was
granted for filing the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed on 17.12.2025.
The matter was thereafter heard at length on 07.01.2026. Upon
consideration of the materials on record and the pleadings and the
submissions advanced by Counsel for both parties, the order dated
07.01.2026 was passed.
It is well settled proposition that the power of recall is extremely
limited in scope and an order passed after hearing the parties may be
recalled only in circumstances such as fraud, palpable procedural
irregularities, absence of notice or an error apparent on the face of record.
Recall cannot be invoked as a substitute for review nor can it be sought on
the ground that a party failed to properly present the case despite having
been granted adequate and full opportunity.
In the present case, the order dated 07.01.2026 was passed after
affording adequate opportunity to the respondents. The materials on record
were duly considered. It is specifically noted that they disputed the
signature of the respondent no.4 in the affidavit. Taking into account the
prima facie view, balance of convenience and other relevant considerations,
this Court had directed the respondents to secure the claim of the petitioner
by way of depositing as an interim measure. The plea of the respondent no.4
was that he was unwell and therefore, could not properly instruct his
Counsel, properly which allegedly resulted in passing of the order, can in no
way be held to constitute fraud, suppression by the opposite party or
procedural impropriety vitiating the order. No such exceptional
circumstances have been established which would warrant recall, review or
modification of the order passed on 07.01.2026. In any event, the interim
arrangement is operative only until constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
Upon constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the parties shall be at liberty to
seek appropriate relief before the Tribunal in accordance with law.
In view of the same, no ground warranting exercise of the power of
recall is made out.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
R.D. Barua
