IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Commercial Division)

ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Hon’ble Justice Shampa Sarkar APOT- 421 of 2024 With IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS RUKMANI DEVI BANGUR AND ORS.

For the appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi choudhury, Senior Adv.

Mr. Biswanath Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sobhan Kumar Pathak, Adv.

For the respondents : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Adv.

Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Ratnadipa Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 06.02.2025 Judgment on: 13.03.2025 Shampa Sarkar, J.:-

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated November 7, 2024, passed by the learned Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings between Rukmani Devi Bangur and others and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The appellant before this court is the respondent in the arbitral proceedings. The respondents herein are the claimants.

2. The order impugned was passed by the learned Arbitrator, while disposing of two applications filed by each party under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The appellant is aggrieved by the direction to pay Rs.22,14,894/-, to the respondents, within four weeks from the date of the order, towards occupational charges.

3. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, the direction was beyond the scope of the applications filed by either party for interim orders, under Section 17 of the said Act. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the purported claim of the respondents for occupational charges between December 1, 2023, and October 31, 2024, should have been adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings. Part of the main relief was allowed by an interim order. Moreover, whether any sum was due and payable to the respondents, was a matter of evidence. The issue should have been adjudicated at the final hearing of the proceedings, after taking into consideration the evidence that would be adduced by the parties. The appellant was willing to hand over vacant possession of the premises in December 2023, and had requested the respondents to take over possession of the property. The respondents did not take any step to facilitate the process of handing over of the keys. The premises remained vacant, but under lock and key. The appellant did not use the property after December 2023, and as such, could not be saddled with the burden of paying occupational charges. The keys remained with the appellant only because the respondents did not respond to the appellant’s request to take over possession. This aspect was completely ignored by the learned Arbitrator. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to appreciate such conduct of the respondents and directed payment of occupational charges for the period between December 1, 2023, and October 31, 2024, at the rate of Rs.2,01,354/- per month (i.e. agreed rent). The appellant had also filed an application under Section 17 of the said Act sometime in July 2024, but the same was disposed of after five months, along with the application filed by the respondents. The appellant could not be penalized by imposition of occupational charges, for the period when the premises remained unoccupied and unutilized.

4. It was submitted that the respondents filed the application under Section 17 of the said Act, for security of money, payment of occupational charges and other reliefs, at a belated stage, i.e., on September 2, 2024. The learned Arbitrator ought to have considered that the said application was an afterthought, vexatious and mala fide. When the rate of rent was in dispute, the quantum of money paid between January 2021 and November 2023, was also in dispute and the rent between January 2021 and November 2023 had been paid even after expiry of lease on December 2020, the direction for further payment was unwarranted. These issues were to be adjudicated finally, before any direction could have been passed to pay the occupational charges. Admittedly