Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Financial Software & Systems P.Ltd. vs Aci Worldwide Corp.. on 17 February, 2014

^
ITEM NO.38                  COURT NO.2             SECTION XII

              S U P R E M E    C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).6733-6736/2012

(From the judgement and order dated 08/11/2011 in OSA No.280/2011, OSA
No.281/2011, OSA No.282/2011 and OSA No.283/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF
MADRAS)

FINANCIAL SOFTWARE & SYSTEMS P.LTD.                  Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

ACI WORLDWIDE CORP.& ORS.                            Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report )

Date: 17/02/2014    These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

For Petitioner(s)          Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv.
                           Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, Adv.
                           Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
                           Mr. Krishnahwar R.S., Adv.
                        Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv.


For Respondent(s)          Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
                        Mr. Dheeraj Nair,Adv.
                           Ms. Pragya Chauhan, Adv.

           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

At the outset, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted that special leave petitions have become infructuous.

Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute this position. He, however, submits that the High Court in the impugned order has made certain observations beyond the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ’Act’) for which some clarification needs to be made. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, controverts the submission of Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel.

In view of the above, one thing is clear that special leave petitions have become infructuous. They are dismissed accordingly as infructuous.

We, however, observe that, if Madras High Court in the impugned order has made any observation beyond the scope of Section 9 of the Act, the question of law arising from such observation/consideration is kept open.

|(Rajesh Dham)                             | |(Renu Diwan)                     |
|Court Master                              | |Court Master                     |