Karnataka High Court
M/S Nikitha Build Tech (P)Ltd., vs M/S Natural Textiles Pvt.Ltd., on 27 May, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 KARNATAKA 170, 2010 (3) AIR KANT HCR 705, 2010 (4) ARBI LR 232, (2010) ILR (KANT) 2846, (2011) 1 KANT LJ 275, (2010) 4 ARBILR 232, (2010) 4 ICC 657, (2010) 3 KCCR 2460
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY. 2010
PRESENT ' " '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE D v sHYLENDR;;.':i§Un:AR
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1(:E N. "
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4'1V3_0"_of 201 =
Between:
Aj_A_lAAJ--4IJ~..I\J xjxx
# 1. 2 :3: 3. SSKM ANNEXE
GANAPATHI NAGAR
PEENYA 111 PHASE
BANGALORE W 560 058,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
M/5_ 1\§IKI'I'HA RI TILDJ}'E('f--E
V APPELLANT
{E3-Y B.R1;'.AD1f}YA--VsONDR1. ADv..]
M/S NATURAL '1"]53}£TILES1":P\'/'"|"_.'LTI).,
# 5/2, 1-4, £3ERATAN1-'?.. AORAHARA __ «
15'"-T KM. BO'B_UR._MA1N ROAD
ELECTRONIC OTTYTPOST _ "
BANGALORE ~ 560 .100 _
REP. BY ETSvDEREC'1?OR" * RESPONDENT
. B [BY sRI"LOMEs}~1 K1RAN,ADV., _V VL.FOR~.M/S. INDUS LAW, ADV.. FOR C/R} .T-Hjlsx "'A"RBEA;i;vV""E1LED UNDER SECTION 37{1][Ai OF THE »..___ARB1'1*RA'i'1ON AND«CONC11.1A'1'1ON ACT. R/W. ORDER 43 RULE Hr] OF CPC';"4.AGAIi\'ST' THE ORDER DTD.24.4.2O1O PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND IA NQ.3aUIN AA No.13/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE) Ii ADDL.
" i;fDI__s-TRICT JUDGE. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. BANGALORE, .: REJEC'1'I--NG CO?-J(;vI.LIA'f§'ION ACT R/w ORDER 39 RULES I & 2 OF CPC FOR T1,, EA E\IO.1 FELED U/S 9 OF ..f',RBITRATION AND AAALLOVVING IA NO.3 FiLED U/O 39 RULE 4 OF CPC, TO VACATE '' .'.,I'HE Ex PARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION. THIS DAY. '' SHYLENDRA KUMAR. J.. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J'U}DG%'IEN'I' The appeal under section 3'/[llla] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 43 Rule l[r] of CPC, by the petitioner in Arbitration Application 2010 before the 11 Additional District, Rural District, Bangalore.
2. The appellant had filed a: petitilonlunderv*lse.c:tionl';Q"'oi:*re the Arbitration and Coiaciliationlllligact._ 19l9'€~. short 'the Act'] seeking the fo11owing;..p_r«aye--r: C * V it it "To res_tra'in "the;,responder;t_frorh carrying out work throiiiighllanyf thir%{ipai'ty contractor in respect of the proje'ct 1-::Lz.,. designeyagndzronstruction of a proposed factory production luni"txa't plot No.1'/""2, 1 73 and 1 74, Boniniasanalra'-iligani Link Road, Industrial Area, Bonianasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore and grant such othrervvaneclfurther reliefs as are just. "
E » ;'i'r1._a pfletiitiony of this nature, the appellant had also filed V an Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for the following prayer:
g'l'Fo_r the reasons stated in the accompanying 'ajfidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may fbe pleased to issue a temporary iryunction
----restraining the respondent from carrying out work through any third party contractor in respect of the appeal ' L"3
project 1112., design and construction of a proposed factory production unit at plot No.l72, 173 and 174, Bommasaridradigani Link Road. Industrial Area, Bommasandra. Anekal Taluk, Bangalore and!' grant such other andfurther reliefs as arejust."f
4. The learned Judge before whom the V' section 9 of the Act is pending, on"ah"*ex&arnin.atio.r1Vtoffthep application, was of the view' that application. some more material"--v,.\ifas rexquiredlplacedlf by the parties before tli'e..,_4co1irt" further opinion that at this stage, the granted and accordingly rej ected' interim':
5. It is lagainstltvhis. :o;'d'er:rejec'ting the interim application in a pending petition 9 of the Act, the present ' ,,VAppeva4ring_&on_behalf of the appellant, submission of Sri :'l'<.___Aditya.Sondh*i',,j'j_learned counsel is that the learned Judge of 'the trial court has not appreciated the significance of the .applicat'ion; that rejection of the application virtually renders njiiain petition under section 9 of the Act infructuous and V°=.._pfassing such an order to defeat the object of the main 4 petition cannot be achieved by passing an order on an interim application. that too adverse to the interest of the appellant.
'7. In the alternative, it is submitted that bona fide apprehends that the learned "
court will proceed to determine the same lines as the interim app_lieation"had and that can only result in petition under section 9 of the "leaves the appellant without the Whiehllis;"eiiizisaged under section 9 the also the impugned order is required to be'tS.'%t fc1sideV,"._ it learned counsel who has entered the respondent, submits that the nwvlvavennents..__'Con«{ained in the affidavit in support of the itH":'"vapplieation"--'are not admitted; that it does not reflect the it terms 'and conditions between the parties. However, hastens it 'add that the appeal only deserves to be dismissed, as itrithout merit.
5
9. The petition under section 9 of the Act itself is by way of an interim measure. We are of the opinion that.~'--there Cannot be further interim application in a petitionVVoft:"thi.s nature. It is for the parties to get their applieatiojnt section 9 of the Act ordered at thefearIies_t.";_ opinion that neither the interimp.applie'ati0.n Was."_tenab1Ve--¢ petition under section 9 of the the appeal.
10. This appeai is rejeete:'dV;._