SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the order No. 14 dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge at Barasat, District - North 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2014, Miscellaneous (ARB) No. 879 of 2014.
(2.) Main grievance of the petitioner is such that he has received a letter in the month of November 2014 from one Jagat Jyoti Mukherjee claiming to be a constituted attorney of the petitioner and in the said letter, the said power of attorney holder has informed him that an arbitration proceeding has been filed against the petitioner by the present opposite party and the learned Trial Court was pleased to a pass restraint order against the petitioner and also against the said power of attorney holder, who claimed himself as the agent of the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically challenged that he has never engaged any Jagat Jyoti Mukherjee to appear and to conduct the litigation, if any against him. He has also submitted that the petitioner was informed that an arbitrator has been appointed in the said matter. According to him, the said arbitration proceeding itself is bad in law.
(3.) It is further contended by the petitioner that he is a resident of 271 Alden Avenue, Adison New Jersey U.S.A. and on the alleged date of the execution of power of attorney he was not in this country. This indicates that there was a fraud practice committed by the power of attorney of holder against him. When he came to know the above fact he has engaged one Piyus Agarwal to act as an attorney.;