Calcutta High Court
Hulash Chand Jain And Ors vs Suresh Kumar Jain And Ors on 16 April, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-1 to 4
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/2/2024
WITH
EC/873/2015
IN
APOT/124/2021
HULASH CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
VS.
SURESH KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.
AND
IA NO. GA/3/2024
WITH
EC/873/2015
IN
APOT/124/2021
HULASH CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
VS.
SURESH KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.
AND
IA NO. GA/3/2024
WITH
EC/873/2015
IN
APOT/141/2021
HULASH CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
VS.
SURESH KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.
AND
2
IA NO. GA/4/2024
WITH
EC/873/2015
IN
APOT/141/2021
HULASH CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
VS.
SURESH KUMAR JAIN AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : 16th April, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. D. N. Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.
Ms. Sananda Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv.
...for the appellants
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
...for the respondents
The Court : This dispute is essentially between brothers. An Award
dated January 3, 2018, was published by the named Arbitrators. The Award
imposed certain obligations on the parties to the proceeding.
The present appellants apparently run a Maruti Car Showroom from a
property which went to the respondents herein. It further appears that
under the Award, the appellants were permitted to occupy the concerned
3
property upon payment of occupation charges specified in the Award for a
certain period of time, after which, they were obliged to hand over vacant
possession to the respondents herein.
Both the parties have filed execution proceedings in this Court, for
executing the Award. Subsequently, the respondents herein approached the
Jodhpur Court for executing the Award insofar as the property mentioned
above is concerned since the same is situated in Jodhpur. It appears that
the Jodhpur Court required the applicants before it being the respondents
before us, to obtain an order from this Court to the effect that execution can
be proceeded with in respect of the concerned property in Jodhpur and to
that extent the same is released from the execution proceeding in this Court.
The respondents herein approached a Learned Single Judge of this Court
by filing GA/10/2021 in EC/873/2015, for deletion of the concerned
Jodhpur property from the Schedule annexed to the execution application
filed by the respondents herein. The Learned Judge by an order dated April
27, 2021, allowed the prayer of the present respondents by directing that the
Jodhpur property be deleted from EC/873/2015.
The appellants herein applied for recall of the order dated April 27, 2021,
by filing GA/12/2021 in EC/873/2015. By an order dated July 26, 2021,
that application was dismissed by the Learned Judge.
The two orders dated April 27, 2021 and July 26, 2021, are the subject-
matter of challenge in two separate appeals being APOT/141/2021 and
APOT/124/2021 respectively.
4
We have heard learned advocate for the appellants at length. Mr.
Sharma, learned Senior Advocate would like to make further submission
with reference to certain documents which he wishes to bring on record.
Let these matters be listed on April 23, 2025, retaining their positions.
We only put it on record that the main point which Mr. Sharma urged
today is that since the Award imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties,
the appellants are not in a position to discharge their obligations vis-à-vis
the Jodhpur property so long as the respondents herein do not discharge
their obligations under the Award. In this connection, Mr. Sharma has
referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1956 SC
359 (Jai Narain Ram Lundia vs. Kedar Nath Khetan and Others).
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
kc.