Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1430 (CAL)

Maa Maihar Steel v. Mstc Limited

2022-10-19

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT The Court 1. The petitioner has preferred this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for an interim protective order during pendency of this proceedings under the aforestated Act and pursuant to the settled terms of agreement between itself and the respondent. 2. Fact remains that the sale order in favour of the petitioner has been terminated and re-auction of the goods has been scheduled to be held today itself (19.10.2022). Petitioner urges that during the entire course, the time limit for him to pay money has been extended, amount has been accepted for him after the extended period of time and also that he is ready to pay the residue amount of money. 3. It is alleged that without considering his bona fide action as above, the opposite party has gone arbitrarily to cancel the contract with him and forfeited the earnest money, earlier submitted by him with the opposite party. 4. It is stated that the petitioner has sought relief before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and the relevant orders are with the record. It is further submitted that as per directions, the petitioner has espoused his grievance before the Chairman, DVC who is the owner and seller of the concerned property and the same is presently pending with the said office. Presently the petitioner has come up with the prayer that the e-auction schedule as regards the same goods may be stayed until disposal of the present application and till disposal of his representation, pending before the Chairman. 5. Learned advocates appear on behalf of the opposite party as well as DVC. Both of them primarily suggest that a copy of the petition is not served upon any of them though it is learnt that so far as the present respondent is concerned, the copy of the petition is served through e-mail, after obtaining leave of this Court. 6. Be that as it may, petitioner is directed to implied DVC as a party respondent and amend the cause title to that effect and also to handover copies of the petition here and now to the learned advocates appearing for the respondent as well as for the DVC. 7. 6. Be that as it may, petitioner is directed to implied DVC as a party respondent and amend the cause title to that effect and also to handover copies of the petition here and now to the learned advocates appearing for the respondent as well as for the DVC. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent is acting as an agent of DVC and has not ever been incorporated as a party to the arbitration clause, hence this application cannot be maintainable against him. 8. On behalf of the DVC, its prejudice as a bonafide seller and also alleged malafide intention of the petitioner has been strongly and categorically submitted. It has further been submitted that there is no agreement between the petitioner and DVC. 9. On behalf of DVC, a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court that is reported in [(2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 728, Oswal Fats and Oils Limited versus Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others], to submit that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and hence, he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 10. Considered submissions of all parties present and perused the documents annexed to the petition as well as the judgment relied on. It is found that the petitioner has challenged cancellation of his contract as well as forfeiture of his earnest money and according to the direction of the Court, the petitioner has taken necessary steps to espouse his grievance before the Chairman. Also that the contract indenture includes an arbitration clause, in case of dispute. Prima facie, there is no denial of part payment by the petitioner. 11. Since the matter is required to be heard in presence of all parties and the representing lawyers would require to have necessary instructions, let the matter be fixed for hearing before the appropriate Bench on the reopening day, i.e., 31.10.2022. In the meantime, the respondent as well as the DVC are directed not to take any steps as regards the E-auction scheduled to be held today (19.10.2022), till the next date of hearing of this case. 12. The petitioner is directed to complete the service and file an affidavit of service in Court on the next date of hearing i.e, on 31.10.2022.