The Union Of India v. M/S. Srishaila Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** FMAT(ARBAWARD)/1/2023 IA No.CAN/2/2023, CAN/3/2025 The Union of India Vs.

M/s Shrishaila Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the appellant Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent February 21, 2025 [SR] Item No.2 Re: CAN/3/2025 1.

This instant application contains the following prayer:- "It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your LORDSHIPS would be graciously pleased to direct the Ld.Registrar of this Honourable Court to release the amount deposited by the opposite party/appellant vide Syndicate Bank, Port Blair, Cheque No.097167 dated 28-04-2023, along with the interest so accrued, in favour of the petitioner herein in his account, details of which are mentioned in Paragraph No.9 above, and may pass order/orders which shall be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2.

The previous application being CAN/2/2023 is being heard by another Coordinate Bench and the records are already transmitted before the Principal Bench so that the matter can be heard and proceeded with before the said Coordinate Bench. 3.

The prayer in the previous application being CAN/2/2023 is as follows:- "It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your LORDSHIPS would be graciously pleased to pass an order modifying/clarifying the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Honorable High Court in FMAT(ARBAWARD) No.1 OF 2023 directing the Learned Registrar of this Court to release an amount of Rs.7,50,00,00/- (Rupees Seven Crore and Fifty Lakh only) in favour of the applicant/petitioner, which is deposited vide Cheque Bearing No.097167 dated 28/04/2023 by the respondent/appellant in favour of the

Learned Registrar of this Court as per the direction of this Honorable High Court and in failure of it applicant/petitioner be permitted to get the said amount released or withdrawn in favour of the applicant/petitioner, in the interest of justice. 4.

Considering the prayer in the above applications, it appears to this Court that the instant second application is absolutely a repetitive one and not permitted to be filed and considered in accordance with law.

5.

Since the previous application with the self same relief is pending for adjudication, there is no scope to pass any order in the instant application, as the same is not maintainable. 6.

Accordingly, the instant application being CAN/3/2025 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. ( Aniruddha Roy, J. ) ( Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)