Karnataka High Court
M/S Alpine Housing Development ... vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 10 July, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1283/2011 (AA)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Alpine Housing Development
Corporation Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
Registered Office at No.302
Alpine Arch, No.10, Langford Road
Bangalore - 560 027
(Rep. by its Director, Sri.S.A.Kabeer)
...APPELLANT
(By Ms.Deepa.M., Advocate, for
Sri.C.M.Poonacha, Advocate, for
M/s. Lex Plexus, Advocates)
2
AND:
1. The Principal Chief Engineer
Central Railways
Head Quarters Office
Engineering Branch
Mumbai CST - 400 001
2. Deputy Chief Engineer, T/P
General Manager/Works
1st Floor, GM Building
Central Railways
Head Quarters Office
Engineering Branch
Mumbai CST - 400 001
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Sanjay Gowda, Advocate)
*****
This MFA is filed under Section 37(1)(a) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the order dated
02.12.2010 passed in A.A.No.898/2009 on the file of
the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH
No.11) dismissing the petition filed u/s 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking an order of
injunction.
This MFA coming on for Admission this day,
K.L.Manjunath J., delivered the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in AA No. 898/2009 dated 02.12.2011.
2. The appellant was petitioner before the Trial Court. The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an order of restraining the respondents from recovering liquidated damages of 5% of the cost of the undelivered Monoblock Concrete Sleepers amounting to Rs.97,86,396/- (Ninety Seven Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six Rupees only), pending adjudication of the dispute by the arbitrator/arbitrators. The petition has been dismissed.
3. Section 9 petition was filed before appointing arbitrator/arbitrators by the concerned parties. Now 4 the parties are before the arbitrator/arbitrators for adjudicating their dispute. The same is pending consideration.
4. This court on 11.02.2011 granted a stay of recovery of the amount by the respondents. The petitioners have furnished bank guarantee which is in force.
5. In view of the pendency of the matter before the Arbitration Tribunal, we are of the view that it is open for the parties to approach the learned arbitrator/arbitrators to obtain necessary orders by way of interim directions.
6. To make necessary application before the Arbitral Tribunal, eight weeks time is granted. Till such time, the order of stay granted on 11.12.2011 shall be in force. The bank guarantee furnished by the 5 appellant shall be renewed until further orders to be passed by the learned arbitrator/arbitrators.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv