Calcutta High Court
M/S Sps Steels Rolling Mills Limited vs Sankar Santra on 7 April, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OC-9
AP-COM/404/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISON
M/S SPS STEELS ROLLING MILLS LIMITED
VS
SANKAR SANTRA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : 7th April, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
The Court: Paper publication has been effected as per the order dated
March 3, 2025 in two widely circulated dailies i.e. The Economic Times and Ei
Samay.
Despite such substituted service, none appears on behalf of the
respondent.
Under such circumstances, the matter is taken up in the absence of the
respondent.
The petitioner supplied TMT bars to one Panchanan Santra, the original
proprietor of M/s. Sarbani Enterprise. Allegedly, payments in full and final
settlement of the invoices raised by the petitioner have not been made.
Panchanan Santra died. His son took over the business as the sole proprietor of
Sarbani Enterprise. Petitioner informed the respondent (son of Panchanan
Santra) that a sum of Rs.21,27,924/- was due and payable as on July 14, 2021.
2
In reply to the said letter, the respondent by letter dated July 20, 2021 requested
for some time to liquidate the dues. The petitioner contends that some business
activities were also undertaken by the parties, amongst themselves. Allegedly,
by a supplementary memorandum of understanding dated April 11, 2022, the
parties agreed that a further sum would be payable to the tune of Rs.15,87,924/-
. The said memorandum of understanding contains an arbitration clause. The
seat of arbitration has been mentioned as Kolkata or any other place as the
Arbitrator decides. The High Court at Calcutta was agreed to have exclusive
jurisdiction in the matter.
The petitioner seeks enforcement of the arbitration clause contained in the
said memorandum of understanding, on the ground that the payments were still
due and the terms of the memorandum of understanding had not been adhered
to.
Moreover, a cheque which was issued for Rs.19,51,066/- was returned by
the bank, with the endorsement, “no advice received.”
Under such circumstances, a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 was issued to the respondent. The respondent
received the same. Despite such receipt, the respondent did not react to the
notice dated June 5, 2023.
Admittedly, the memorandum of understanding dated April 11, 2022 which
has been captioned as “Memorandum of Understanding Supplementary” contains
an arbitration clause. There appears to be a live dispute. In any event, the
referral court is only required to ascertain whether there is an existing arbitration
clause or not. Apart from such, prima facie, evidence of an arbitration clause,
3
the other issues with regard to jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the claim of
the petitioner, arbitrability of the issues and admissibility of the claims, including
the point of limitation etc. are to be decided in the arbitral proceeding. Keeping
all the above issues open for the learned Arbitrator to take a decision if raised by
the respondents, the application is disposed of by appointing Mr. Shayak Mitra
(mobile 7439503011) to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties. This
order is subject to compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
The learned Arbitrator shall fix his own remuneration as per the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
AP COM/404/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
sp/
[ad_1]
Source link
