Skip to content


Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Arunendu Sarkar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSrei Equipment Finance Limited
RespondentArunendu Sarkar
Excerpt:
.....directing the receiver to take possession of the asset covered by the agreement from the third parties in possession thereof since the respondents had apparently agreed that the petitioner should take possession of the asset and the third parties in possession of the asset did not claim any lien over the same. the petitioner informs the court that an appeal has been preferred from the order dated april 21, 2014. it appears that the third parties in possession of the assets have resisted the receiver in taking possession of the asset. one of the pitfalls of an arbitration agreement – and, in particular, in cours.of the interlocutory proceedings therein – is that the court and the arbitrator have jurisdiction only over the parties to the arbitration agreement and not over others.....
Judgment:

AP No.123 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED -VersusARUNENDU SARKAR Appearance: Mr.Satarup Banerjee, Adv...for the petitioner.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : July 4, 2014.

The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service.

On April 21, 2014 an order was passed directing the receiver to take possession of the asset covered by the agreement from the third parties in possession thereof since the respondents had apparently agreed that the petitioner should take possession of the asset and the third parties in possession of the asset did not claim any lien over the same.

The petitioner informs the Court that an appeal has been preferred from the order dated April 21, 2014.

It appears that the third parties in possession of the assets have resisted the receiver in taking possession of the asset.

One of the pitfalls of an arbitration agreement – and, in particular, in couRs.of the interlocutory proceedings therein – is that the Court and the arbitrator have jurisdiction only over the parties to the arbitration agreement and not over others who are not parties thereto.

In a sense, the authority of a Court in seisin of an interlocutory application in connection with an arbitral reference is somewhat diluted than the authority of an ordinary civil Court exercising regular civil poweRs.Since the dispute between the third parties in possession of the asset and the petitioner cannot be said to be covered by the arbitration agreement herein, no preliminary adjudication in respect of such dispute ought, ordinarily, to be made.

In the circumstances, A.P.No.123 of 2014 is disposed of by discharging the receiver and by leaving the petitioner free to pursue any other remedy that may be available to the petitioner both under the said Act of 1996 and under any other applicable law.

The receiver will not be required to file any accounts.

There will be no order as to costs.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //