APO 65 of 2023

Case: Concrete Developers LLP v Gaurav Churiwal and Ors

Appearance

Petitioner: Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Respondent : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

Order Dated: 24.11.2023

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta recently contended that a Court exercising powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) must be circumspect in its interference with interim orders of an arbitrator.

Facts of the Case

The present appeal, filed under section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is from an order passed by a learned sole arbitrator The impugned order is an interim order and was passed in an application filed by respondent no. 1/claimant under section 17(1) of the 1996 Act whereby the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 6 crores in a separate interest-bearing account in the name of the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) namely Concrete Developers LLP.

he LLP was constituted according to an Agreement dated 24.11.2015 to develop a high-end real-estate project – “Raghu Estates” in Alipore, Kolkata. The project had a developer’s allocation of 16 flats of the total number of flats constructed for the project.

Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 1 / claimant and the appellants in the context of the claimant’s prayer for directing the appellants to set apart Rs. 6,41,73,413.00/- being the total balance about Pawan Kumar Churiwal’s shares (the father of the claimant) as on 12.1.2021, the learned arbitrator was of the view that the claimant and/or the other legal heirs of the deceased partner, Pawan Kumar Churiwal are entitled to accounts and a share in the profits in the LLP. The appellants were accordingly directed to keep a sum of Rs. 6 crores apart in a separate interest-bearing account in the name of the LLP. The appellants were also directed to furnish the particulars of accounts to the claimant and to maintain the accounts till disposal of the arbitration. Counsel submits that an order for securing a particular amount of money can only be made concerning an “amount in dispute” whereas the impugned order is based on equitable considerations which cannot be done under the provisions of the 1996 Act. Counsel submits that the claimant’s section 17 application did not contain any prayer for securing any particular amount and that the impugned order is also contrary to section 24(5) of the LLP Act, 2008 which restricts the entitlement of a person to the share of a deceased partner to the capital contribution of the former partner and the former partner’s share in the accumulated profits of the LLP. Counsel further submits that the impugned order suffers from an absence of reasons as to the basis of the direction on the appellant to set Rs. 6 crores apart and is also contrary to the arbitrator’s findings in the 10th sitting. Counsel further submits that the claimant’s conduct in the arbitration was inequitable and that the impugned order is patently illegal and perverse.

Counsel submits that the object and purpose of section 17 is to preserve the value of the share of the deceased partner at the time of his demise so that the claimant’s share is not frittered away by the other partners who are in control of the appellant LLP. It is submitted that the appellant and the other partners were siphoning away profits from the sale of flats during the arbitration.

Analysis of the court

The facts and circumstances that were presented before the learned arbitrator or were disclosed in fits and spurts by the appellant / surviving partners fully justify the impugned interim order There can be no jurisdictional objection to the impugned order as the Act of 1996 grants the arbitral tribunal plenary powers to pass such orders for preserving the dispute in the arbitration. The order also does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity and is certainly not arbitrary or perverse. The Court’s view is supported by the reasons given above.

Taking into account the legal position, the case law on the subject, and the particular facts in the present matter, the Court is accordingly of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference.

The aforesaid applications are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click here to view the judgement

Case: Balbina Tandon & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors.

 Case No: C.R.R 2798 of 2016

Appearance

Petitioner: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly

State: Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, Mr. Subrato Roy.

CORAM: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

Order dated: 28/11/2023

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta has disbanded an application filled under section 482 of CRPC by a wife, for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against her under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide of her deceased husband.

 

Facts of the Case

The petitioners have filed the present revision under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, 1973, to seek an order of this Court quashing the proceedings under Sections 306/34 IPC.

The charge sheet was submitted arraying all the present petitioners as accused persons, on the allegations that torture inflicted by them has prompted the victim to commit suicide and thus the present petitioners have abated his fateful death, and an offense under Section 306 IPC has been committed by all the present petitioners in furtherance of their common intentions.

Petitioners, in this case, have contended inter alia that the FIR or any other material would not reveal the commission of the alleged offense against them. The advocate for the petitioner submits that the essential ingredient of the petitioners directly instigating the victim for the commission of suicide would not be available in this case. He has further stated that there is no intentional aiding or any positive act on the part of the petitioners to sustain the allegations of the de facto complainant. It has been submitted that the petitioner along with her minor child has been living separately from the victim for a considerable period. He emphasizes that there has been no direct contact or day-to-day transaction, interaction, or communication between the parties to even give rise to a situation where the petitioners might have instigated the victim for commission of suicide. He says that by no stretch of the imagination, any involvement of his clients can be conceived regarding what has happened or else it would contradict the settled law of the land in this regard. the ‘suicide note’ recovered, in this case, cannot be seen to be a simple declaration of self-condemnation of the said person. It also primarily reveals some other shades of emotions of the person, which cannot be undermined in any way. He writes that his wife and daughter are like dead persons, to him and they should not be allowed to attend his funeral. At the end of the said ‘note,’ the deceased writes that none of his matrimonial relations including his wife or child, should be allowed to see the dead body.

Analysis of the court

it is found that the investigation in this case has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, let the trial Court immediately proceed for commitment of the case, if not done as yet and the trial be commenced, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial Court is requested to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed independently and without being influenced by any of the findings of this Court, in this judgment, while proceeding with the trial of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury

Click to view the judgement