M/s. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd v. M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
therefore, keeping all points open, the present Petition is disposed of with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, resisted the prayer clause on the ground that no such relief can be granted in such Petition as prayed. Without observing anything on merits of the matter and as the Petitioner is entitled to move such application…
Judgment
Mr. Milind Gokhale with Mr. Kunal Bhange for the Petitioner. Ms. Mili Thakkar i/by Mr. S.V. Thakkar for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 22ND JUNE, 2009. P.C.-
The Petitioner, pending the Arbitration proceeding, moved this Application under Section 9(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”). Admittedly, the matter is pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. The main prayer clause (a) is as under:- That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its “a) jurisdiction under Section 9(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to handover the entire “C” Forms to the Petitioner Company amounting to Rs.4,01,04,798/- (Rupees Four crores one lac four thousand ninety eight only) more fully described in Exhibit-B to the present Petition in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
After hearing both the parties, to consider the scope of Section 9 of 2 the Act read with the submission that whether such prayer can be granted in such proceedings or not. The learned counsel fairly conceded that they will take appropriate steps or application before the Arbitral Tribunal for the relief as sought in the present Petition, as the Arbitral Tribunal is already considering the dispute arising out of the agreement between the parties.
Operative part
The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, resisted the prayer clause on the ground that no such relief can be granted in such Petition as prayed. Without observing anything on merits of the matter and as the Petitioner is entitled to move such application before the Tribunal, therefore, keeping all points open, the present Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take out appropriate application/ Petition before the Tribunal.
Considering the averments made and as urgency is shown, the Arbitral Tribunal to pass appropriate order on the application if filed, after giving hearing to both the parties, as early as possible, by treating such application for an interim measure as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: therefore, keeping all points open, the present Petition is disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9(e).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jun 2009. The bench was ANOOP V MOHTA.
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.