Delhi High Court - Orders
Sikka Motor Private Limited vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd Hmil on 6 May, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 110/2022
SIKKA MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
versus
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD HMIL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr Dhritiman Bhattacharyya and Mr
Piyush Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
ORDER
% 06.05.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPLs. 21836-37/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 110/2022 and CM APPL. 21835/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant for interim relief]
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.04.2022, passed by the learned single judge in O.M.P.(I)(COMM) 391/2021.
3. Mr Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the present appeal is confined to the observations made in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment.
3.1 It is Mr Sibal‟s contention that once the learned single judge held that this court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and FAO(OS) (COMM) 110/2022 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:10.05.2022 15:59:17 Conciliation Act, 1996, the observations made in paragraph 33 could not have been made.
4. Issue notice.
4.1. Mr Dhritiman Bhattacharyya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
5. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
6. We have put to Mr Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent, as to whether the observations made by the learned single judge in paragraph 33 were necessary for the conclusion of the matter. 6.1. Mr Sethi, fairly, submits that the aforesaid observations are only prima facie in nature and would have no impact on the final determination made by the learned single judge qua the issue concerning territorial jurisdiction.
7. In these circumstances, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that in case the appellant were to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, before the concerned forum, as may be available in law, the observations made in paragraph 33 in the impugned judgment will not come in its way. 7.1. Needless to add, if and when such an action is instituted by the appellant, the respondent will be free to defend its position on merits.
8. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
POONAM A. BAMBA, J
MAY 6, 2022 / tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
FAO(OS) (COMM) 110/2022 page 2 of 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
JAIN
Signing Date:10.05.2022
15:59:17