Judgment · High Court · 2009

Heard Shri Anand Jaiswal, Advocate for appellant. Appeal is under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and challenge is to the order under Section 9 of the said Act, passed by the Principal District Judge, Amravati. The Principal District Judge, Amravati has found that there is no question of applicant suffering any irreparable loss and action for damages would be the appropriate remedy. It has also been found that the applicant has to restrict himself to the arrangement falling within the provisions of Section 73 to 75 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It is to be noted that the prayers before the Principal District Judge under section 9 application were to restrain the Amravati Municipal Corporation, officer, servants etc., from removing any of -2- movable articles of the applicant from the Auditorium and to restrain them from taking any further steps in relation to said Auditorium which forms subject matter of agreement dated 1.9.2003. Second prayer is to direct Amravati Municipal Corporation to remove lock put by it on external doors of the Auditorium and to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the applicant. By referring to Clause 23 of the said agreement the Principal District Judge has found that applicant was at the most agent of Amravati Municipal Corporation for running said Auditorium. It also found that though the applicant was obliged to furnish Bank guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs, he has only furnished Bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs. It is not necessary for this Court to go into further factual controversy in the matter. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Audhnik Steels .vrs. Orissa Manganese (AIR 2007 SC 2563), this application of mind by the Principal District Judge, Amravati cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. No case is made out warranting interference in appeal under Section 37. Appeal is thus dismissed. No cost. Rgd. JUDGE