M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. M/s.Zuari Cements Ltd
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 22 Sep 2011
- Bench
- A GOPAL REDDY, K S APPA RAO
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd., An existing company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, having its regd. Office At L&T House, Ballard Estate, P.O. Box No.278, Mumbai, rep. by its authorized representative Mr.K.Sreekumar AND …Appellant
M/s.Zuari Cements Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its regd. Office At Krishna Nagar, Yerraguntla, Kadapa, A.P. Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No.856 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Act’) is filed by the appellant-petitioner against the interim orders in I.A.No.1029 of 2011 in A.O.P.No.110 of 2011 dated
Operative part
17.8.2011 passed by II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Proddatur, whereby the application filed under Section 9 of the Act read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking injunction pending the arbitration O.P. restraining the respondent from encashing the bank guarantee has been dismissed. It is now represented by learned counsel for the respondent that the main A.O.P. itself has been dismissed on 02.09.2011. In view of the dismissal of the A.O.P., the cause in the appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. Appellant is at liberty to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act against the order passed dismissing the main A.O.P. and can raise all the contentions available to it under law. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 K.S. APPA RAO, J. Tsr. __________________
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Sep 2011. The bench was A GOPAL REDDY, K S APPA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.