HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. AMIT ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent has seriously questioned the propriety of this court to receive the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only at the very last stage of the final hearing. But it cannot be said that such ground was not indicated earlier.

(2.) IT is evident that the first respondent expressed his reservation on such aspect when he was represented for the first time in course of the proceedings. The ground is also squarely taken in the affidavit filed by the first respondent. However, the minor matter as to territorial jurisdiction was relegated to the back-burner upon a startling allegation being made by the first respondent against the receiver appointed in the matter and the objection appeared to have been given up till resurrected just at the end.

(3.) THE matter was next taken up on November 17, 2011 when a direction was issued for a police investigation to be conducted "as to whether the excavator and rock-breaker claimed by the respondents to have been taken away from the respondents still remain with the respondents or persons known to the respondents. " THE order was modified on December 23, 2011 by requiring the Commissioner of Police, Asansol-Durgapur Police Commissionerate, to conduct the investigation. THE report was directed to be filed when the matter was to appear next on January 19, 2012. THE report was filed on the due date, copies of the report were directed to be obtained by the parties, the matter was adjourned for three weeks and the parties were left free to take appropriate steps in respect of the report. On March 14, 2012, when the matter next received attention, it was submitted by the petitioner that baseless and scurrilous allegations had been levelled against the receiver by the first respondent in his affidavit affirmed on July 6, 2011. THE first respondent was directed to be examined as to the contents of his affidavit on April 12, 2012. THE first respondent has been cross-examined on the contents of his affidavit on July 4 and July 6, 2012. THE matter has, thereafter, been heard on several occasions. It is only on September 24, 2012 that the first respondent earnestly urged the objection as to the propriety of this court receiving or deciding the petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. THE petitioner has also applied, by way of GA No. 488 of 2012, for taking steps against the first respondent for the alleged perjury committed by him.