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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 618

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, J.
The State of West Bengal and Ors. – Applicants
Versus
M/S B B M Enterprise – Respondent
IA No. GA-COM 4 of 2024 In A.P - 808 of 2022
Decided On : 19-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nilanjan Adhya, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P., Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Arindam Mandal, Adv., Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv., Ms. Swagata Ghosh, Adv.

The court clarified that award debtors must deposit the full awarded sum as a condition for staying enforcement, emphasizing that both public and private parties are subject to the same requirements under the Arbitration Act.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(2) and (3) - Request for additional cash security and withdrawal of amount awarded - Dispute over execution of contract, arbitration award amounting to Rs. 5,32,80,181/- was awarded but stayed due to insufficient deposit; Court clarified that award debtor must deposit full amount to stay enforcement of award - It was emphasized that the award holder must have the ability to enjoy the fruits of the award without undue delay. (Paras 3, 9, 12, 52)

(B) Legal Principles - The court retains jurisdiction to modify terms of stay and is guided by principles of equity; “the express deposit requirement for stay applies equally to the state and private parties” and the need to balance equities between parties. (Paras 6, 26, 29)

(C) Findings - The applicant was permitted to withdraw awarded amounts upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The requirement for full deposit ensures timely enforcement of awards and protects rights of award holders. (Paras 36, 56)

(D) Issues - The question was whether the award debtors can be ordered to deposit additional amounts and if the award holder can withdraw amounts already deposited without prejudice to the outcome of a challenge to the award. (Paras 25, 42) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that disorderly applications for withdrawal do not equate to reopening closed orders, and amendments to the law on deposits signify the requirement for full compliance. (Paras 54, 57)

Result: The applicant's request was allowed with directions issued for deposit and security arrangements.

Table of Content
1. facts related to the award and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. further directions requested. (Para 5)
3. grounds for seeking cash security. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. prerequisites for stay of enforcement. (Para 9 , 10)
5. arguments on adequacy of the deposit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. cites supporting decisions related to cash security. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. further references to case law. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. arguments against modification of previous orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. court's analysis and interpretations. (Para 23 , 24)
10. legal framework discussion. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
11. discussion on judicial precedents. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
12. court's retentive jurisdiction over conditions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
13. discussion on withdrawal rights. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
14. concluding arguments for equity. (Para 37 , 38)
15. definitions of rights and obligations. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
16. final observations and orders. (Para 45 , 46)
17. culmination of cash security determination. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
18. final deliberations on case law. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
19. final orders and directions given. (Para 57)

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. GA-COM/4/2024 is an application seeking deposit of additional cash security by the award debtors for the remainder of the awarded amount together with accrued interest as on December 31, 2023. The award holder is the applicant. The dues calculated as per the award as on 31st December, 2023 stood at Rs. 5,32,80,181/-.

2. The dispute between the parties was that, the award debtor did not pay the bills raised by the applicant, despite complete execution of the work. The award holder invoked arbitration under clause 25 of the conditions of the contract. A statement of claim was filed before the learned Arbitrator and upon considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Arbitrator passed the award on July 2, 2022.

3. The award debtors filed an application for setting aside the award. The applicant filed an execution case seeking enforcement of the award vide EC No. 12 of 2023, on January 5, 2023. Immediately thereafter, the award debtors moved an application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on January 17, 2023. Before a predecessor Judge, the award debtors submitted that, they were willing to deposit Rs. 9 crores within a period of six weeks before the Registrar Original Side, High Court at Calcutta. Accordingly, an order was passed, staying the enforceability of the award. However, the award debtors failed to deposit the money within time. By order dated March 14, 2023, the time for deposit of the money was extended. On March 16, 2023, the award holder was informed that the money had been deposited. Accordingly, a prayer was made for withdrawal of the money. The award holder contended that, for the purpose of execution of the subject contract, a loan had been obtained from the Punjab National Bank. The award holder failed to repay the debt as per the repayment schedule of the bank. A notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was issued on February 17, 2021. It was also stated that the business had suffered on account of the Covid pandemic and substantial amount of money was required for survival of the business and repayment of the bank’s dues. The award holder was hoping to repay the amount from the awarded sum, but on account of the stay, the money did not pass to the award holder.

4. The application was allowed by order dated July 25, 2023. The Court allowed withdrawal of the sum deposited with a condition for securing the amount by a personal bank guarantee. Another application, i.e., G.A No. 2 of 2023 was filed on July 28, 2023, for addition of the name of the Punjab National Bank, Keyatala Branch, Kolkata. The application was allowed, and the order dated July 25, 2023 was modified on July 28, 2023.

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