HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. P.K.SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed by the petitioner praying for punishment of the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 10th May, 2013 passed by the Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No.1473 of 2012.

(2.) The background of filing the instant contempt petition is that the petitioner is the proprietor of Proprietorship Firm engaged in the business of transportation of goods through parcel van in different trains and allied works. The petitioner was awarded 4 MT Space on lease in Front SLR by Train No.12254 UP for a period of three years from 10th February, 2010 to 9th February, 2013 by the opposite parties pursuant to Tender Notice for grant of lease of Front SLR - 4 ton space of the said train. There was a formal agreement between the petitioner and the opposite parties on 9th February, 2010 for the aforesaid lease of 4 MT Space in Front SLR by Train No.12254 UP for the period of aforesaid three years and for which the petitioner started business by depositing advanced weekly freight charge @ Rs.7250 per trip. It is alleged that the said lease between the petitioner and the opposite parties was not extended by two more years by the opposite parties, in spite of specific clause in the lease agreement to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get further extension of two more years of the lease on payment of 25% more freight charge. After expiry of the term of lease the petitioner started proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 11.12.2012 and the said proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No.1473 of 2012. It appears from the materials on record that clause 28 of the agreement between the petitioner and the opposite parties lays down that in the event of any difference of opinion or dispute between the Railway Authority and the lease-holder with regard to the respective rights and obligations of the parties and in respect of the true intent and meaning of the terms and conditions thereof, such difference of opinion shall be referred to the sole arbitrator or any officer appointed by the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta for the time being, whose decision shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties. Thus, the intention of the parties was to refer the dispute between the parties to the arbitrator for decision and all the disputes were made subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts located in Calcutta. In view of the fact that the opposite parties did not consider the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the period of lease, in spite of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the opposite parties on 10.09.2012 and 10.12.2012 and in view of the fact that the dispute raised by the petitioner is to be decided by arbitral proceeding, Learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta passed the impugned order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 10.05.2013 in Misc. Case No.1473 of 2012. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.1473 of 2012 is as follows:

(3.) It appears from the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.1473 of 2012 that both parties were directed to refer the dispute to the arbitrator and pending disposal of the matter by the arbitrator the opposite parties were restrained by an order of injunction from creating any third party interest in respect of the leasing right in F-SLR 4 ton space in Train No.12254 UP BGP YPR Express on payment of 25% more freight rate than the existing freight rate, subject to the satisfactory performance of the Railway Authorities till final disposal of the arbitral proceeding. The condition imposed by Learned Judge for continuation of the order of injunction is that each of the parties will refer the matter to the arbitrator within one month from the date of passing of the order, failing which this order of injunction shall stand vacated. The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction for punishment of the opposite parties for wilful violation of the above order of injunction granted by Learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta.