Siva Stores And Ors vs Urgo Capital Limited on 5 May, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Siva Stores And Ors vs Urgo Capital Limited on 5 May, 2025

Author: Arijit Banerjee

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

OCD-9


                               APOT/82/2025
                                   With
                            AP-COM /1068/2024
                          IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Commercial Appellate Division
                             ORIGINAL SIDE


                         SIVA STORES AND ORS.
                                 -VS-
                         URGO CAPITAL LIMITED

 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
 Date : 5th May, 2025.



                                                                     Appearance:
                                                      Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta Adv.
                                                       Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Aniket Chaudhury, Adv.
                                                Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                                               ...for the appellant

                                                        Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                                         Mr. K. K. Pandey, Adv.
                                                        Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
                                                             Ms. Pooja Sett, Adv.
                                                        Ms. Mallika Bothra, Adv.
                                                            ...for the respondent

The Court: By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected

application are taken up together.

2

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated February

19, 2025, whereby the respondent’s application under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was disposed of by restraining the

present appellants from dealing with, transferring, alienating or changing the

nature and character of the secured assets.

Learned advocate for the appellants says that before the impugned

order was passed, the Learned Judge ought to have recorded at least a prima

facie satisfaction of the existence of an undisputed arbitration clause and

that there is a prima facie case for granting injunction. The same not having

been done, the order impugned ought to be set aside.

We see that on the day the impugned order was passed, nobody

appeared for the present appellants before the Learned Single Judge. The

Learned Judge noted that on an earlier occasion a learned advocate had

appeared through video conferencing facility. On the day the impugned

order was passed, the appellants herein, being the respondents before the

Learned Single Judge, were not represented.

Since the appellants herein chose not to appear before the Learned

Single Judge on the day the impugned order was passed, we are not inclined

to interfere with the order. This will not prevent the appellants from

approaching the Learned Single Judge with an appropriate application, if

they are so advised.

3

This order will also not prevent the appellants from urging all points

including the point of existence of a valid arbitration clause before the

arbitral forum or any other forum that may be available to the appellants in

accordance with law.

APOT/82/2025 along with IA NO.GA-COM/1/2025 are disposed of.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)

kc