SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Basu House Private Limited - Plaintiff
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank – Defendant
IA No: GA 3 of 2023 In CS 44 of 2013
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Mr. Gourav Kumar.
For the Defendant : Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Mr. Sudeep Pal Choudhuri, Ms. Diya Nandi.

Headnote:

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 6 (4) – Recovery of possession – Records of arbitration proceeding – Peaceful possession of entire basement – Decree for recovery – Held, Court is of opinion that in present case, plaintiff has admitted that there is an arbitration clause and plaintiff has appointed an arbitrator and arbitrator has proceeded with arbitration proceedings – Suit filed by plaintiff is subject matter of arbitration agreement and defendant has not submitted his written statement in present suit – Thus this court has come to conclusion that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit during pendency of arbitration proceeding – G.A disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The petitioner/defendant has filed the instant application praying for following reliefs :

“a) Recall the order dated January 9, 2013 by which the instant suit was directed to be placed in the list of ‘undefended suits’;

b) Leave be granted to your petitioner to enter appearance in the instant suit within such period as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court;

c) The plaintiff be directed to produce the original and/or a duly certified copy of the deed of lease dated July 1, 1972;

d) The plaintiff be directed to produce the records of the arbitration proceeding held between the parties before Sri Dhurjati Chakrabarti Thakur, Sole Arbitrator;

e) The instant suit be dismissed and/or permanently stayed and the parties herein be referred to arbitration;

f) In the alternative, the plaint of the instant suit be rejected and/or the plaint be taken off the file;

g) In the alternative, the suit be dismissed;

h) In the alternative, the time to file written statement be extended by a week from the date of passing of the order;

i) Stay of the order dated January 9, 2023 and all further proceedings in the suit, being C.S. No. 44 of 2013, till disposal of the instant application;

j) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (i) above;

k) Costs of and/or incidental to the instant application be borne by the plaintiffs;

l) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as Your Lordships deem fit and proper.”

2. The respondent/ plaintiff has filed the suit being C.S. No. 44 of 2013 against the defendant praying for following reliefs :

“(a) Decree for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of entire basement floor comprising an area of 2000 square feet together with ground floor comprising an area of 1800 square feet aggregating to an area of 3,800 square feet of the building at premises No. 3, Chowringhee approach, Kolkata 700072, more fully described in Schedule hereof :

(b) Decree for Rs. 2,65,99,137.00/-as claimed in paragraph 15 of this plaint;

(c) Decree for further mesne profits @ Rs. 25,333.00 per day from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of vacant possession of the tenanted premises entire basement floor comprising an area of 2000 square feet together with ground floor comprising an area of 1800 square feet aggregating to an area of 3,800 square feet of the building at premises No. 3, Chowringhee approach, Kolkata700 072, more fully described in Schedule hereof;

(d) Interim interest and interest on judgment @ 18% per annum and/or at such rate as to this Hon’ble Court may determine;

(e) Alternatively, inquiry into the quantum of mesne profits and/or damages suffered by the Plaintiff and a decree for such sum as may be found due and payable against the Defendant;

(f) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay proportionate share of Municipal rates and taxes, commercial surcharge, water taxes, sewerage and drainage service with effect from 1st April, 2010 in respect of the area under occupation of the defendant on the basis of the Bills raised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation till the date of delivery of vacant and khas possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff;.”

3. The writ of summon was served upon the defendant on 19th June, 2013 but even after receipt of writ of summon, the defendant has not entered appearance in the suit and accordingly this Court had passed an order on 9th January, 2023 by fixing the matter in the list of undefended suit.

4. Now that defendant has filed the instant application praying for multiple reliefs on the following grounds :

i. The plaintiff had already initiated an Arbitration Proceeding against the defendant and an arbitrator was appointed and both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings but since the year 2016, no hearing was conducted and the arbitration proceeding is still pending before the Learned Sole Arbitrator and thus the suit is not maintainable.

ii. The defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top