Tripura High Court
M/S Hindustan Steel Works ... vs Smt. Kalyani Debnath And Others on 1 June, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.02/2023 in Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
IA No.01/2023 in Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (HSCL)
.........Applicant/appellant(s);
Versus
Smt. Kalyani Debnath and others
.........Respondent(s).
For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate,
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
01/06/2023
IA No.02/2023 in Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, for the
applicant/appellant and Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel representing
respondent No.1 and also Mr. Karnajit De, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-respondents.
The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.11.2022
passed by learned District Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala in
Commercial Suit No.17 of 2016 whereby the suit has been decreed partly on
contest. The termination of agreement by Defendant No.1 has been declared
as "arbitrary". The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been held to be entitled to
total amount of Rs.2,77,25,189/- (Rupees Two crores seventy seven lakhs
twenty five thousand one hundred eighty nine) only along with 8% interest
per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
The appeal suffers from a delay of 32 days in preferring the
instant appeal for condonation of which IA No.02/2023 has been preferred.
Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant,
submits that the delay has been properly explained at paragraphs 4 to 8 of
the instant application. He submitted that appellant is a public sector
undertaking under Government of India. After examination of the papers
and documents and obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment,
it was examined by the Legal Section of the appellant and then forwarded
for settlement of draft to the learned senior advocate appearing in this case.
Some more papers were sought for examination by learned senior counsel
which were placed before him. Thereafter, the memo of the appeal was
prepared on 15.02.2023 and the appeal has been filed on 20.02.2023 which
has occasioned a delay of 32 days.
Appellant has been able to show sufficient cause and is also
covered by the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Government
of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive
Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460. He submitted that delay, if any, is bona fide
and not on account of any negligence on the part of the appellant and as
such, the short delay of 32 days may be condoned.
Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has
opposed the prayer. He has taken us to the averments made in the objection
petition. He submitted that the appellant consumed 11 days time in seeking
certified copy of the impugned judgment which has not been properly
explained. As such, the appellant has failed to satisfy sufficient cause for
condonation of the delay.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the explanation furnished by the appellant and the
objection taken by the respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3-State of
Tripura have appeared and not filed any written objection in preferring the
appeal after a delay of 32 days. Regard being had to the fact that the time
consumed in preferring the appeal was primarily on account of the hierarchy
of the organization which is a public sector organization in obtaining
opinion from the Legal Section the delay is not abnormal. We are inclined to
condone it keeping into mind the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supra)
as sufficient cause has been shown in respect thereof.
Accordingly, IA is allowed and disposed of.
IA No.01/2023 in Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for stay of
the impugned judgment and award dated 04.11.2022 passed in Commercial
Suit No.17 of 2016.
On giving excess consideration to the prayer for stay, subject to
deposit of 50% of the decretal amount within a period of 2(two) months
before the learned Trial Court and submission of Bank Guarantee to the
Registry of this Court in respect of the remaining 50% amount, operation of
the Judgment and decree passed by learned District Commercial Court, West
Tripura, Agartala in Commercial Suit No.17 of 2016 shall remain stayed.
IA stands disposed of.
Commercial App. No.03 of 2023
Admit.
Call for the lower court records from the concerned court.
Office to prepare Paper Book.
Matter be listed for hearing in usual course.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush
