M/s. Juliet Products Ltd v. None
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
reasons the application is dismissed summarily
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In substance, what the applicants are seeking by this petition is to challenge the action taken by the respondent no.1 under the Securitisation Act of effecting the sale. This is wholly outside the purview of the Arbitration Act. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot…
Judgment
aggrieved by this communication and apprehending that the respondent no.1 would commit breach of the agreement to sell the petitioner moved this court under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and sought an injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from selling the property to any third person. In that petition (initially numbered as Arbitration Petition lodging no. 622 of 2006 and subsequently renumbered as Arbitration Petition No. 99 of 2006), a compromise was reached between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 under which the respondent no.1 agreed to sell and transfer the property to the petitioner. Accordingly consent terms were filed in the said arbitration petition by the petitioner and the respondent no.1 in the court. This court (Coram: D.K. Deshmukh J.) accepted the said consent terms and passed an order in terms of the consent terms. That order accepting the consent terms and the order in terms of the consent terms passed by the court is impugned by the applicants by this application.
At the outset it must be mentioned that the applicants have 4 filed a writ petition, bearing writ petition lodging No. 1957 of 2006, challenging the very consent terms. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the reliefs claimed in writ petition lodging No. 1957 of 2006 are identical with the reliefs claimed in this application. The writ petition was filed earlier and is still pending. In my view, during the pendency of the writ petition, a second proceeding by way of an application under the Arbitration Act for setting aside the consent terms is not maintainable.
It may be noted that the applicants are not parties to the consent terms recorded in Arbitration Petition No. 99 of 2006. Obviously they are not bound by the said consent terms. It is open to them to take such steps as are available to them to challenge the said consent terms or claim that the consent terms, to which they are not parties, are not biding on them. In fact the applicants have taken steps for challenging consent terms by filing the writ petition lodging No. 1957 of 2006. The Arbitration Act does not contemplate an application by a third party for setting aside the consent terms reached 5 between the parties to the proceedings to which he is not a party. The arbitration petition no.99 of 2006 was filed on the basis of an agreement allegedly entered into between respondent no.1 and the petitioner for sale of the suit property. The applicants were not a party to the said agreement. Obviously the applicants were not bound by the said agreement. It was open to the petitioner and respondent no.1 in the arbitration petition to enter into a settlement. That settlement would not affect the rights, if any, of the applicants in the property.
Operative part
In substance, what the applicants are seeking by this petition is to challenge the action taken by the respondent no.1 under the Securitisation Act of effecting the sale. This is wholly outside the purview of the Arbitration Act. In the circumstances the petitioner cannot challenge the said consent terms by means of the present application. For these reasons the application is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: reasons the application is dismissed summarily
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 101; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2006. The bench was D G KARNIK.
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.