M/S Spanco Ltd vs Hartron Ltd & Anr on 19 January, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Spanco Ltd vs Hartron Ltd & Anr on 19 January, 2016

Bench: Amit Rawal

 FAO No.1 of 2014 (O&M)                                                      1


                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                                   FAO No.1 of 2014 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: January 19, 2016


           M/s Spanco Limited

                                                                       ..... Appellant
                                                  Versus


           Haryana State Electronics Development Corp. Ltd. and another


                                                                       ...... Respondents



           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL


           Present:             Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for the appellant.
                                Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
                                Mr. G.S. Anand, Advocate for respondent No.2.


                                           ****
           AMIT RAWAL, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act') for restraining respondent No.1 from getting the Bank Guarantee. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant had filed application under Section 9 of 1996 Act before the Competent Court. The same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate Court. This fact is discernible from the pleadings culled out in paragraph 30 of the appeal, which read as under:

"30. That the petitioner approached the District Court, Chandigarh for the interim relief, but the same was JYOTI 2016.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner with the liberty to integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1 of 2014 (O&M) 2 approach the appropriate Court and no such matter is pending."

The interim relief sought in the present case, in my opinion, is arising out of the same alleged dispute. The grievance of the appellant is to seek interim measure by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of 1996 Act, in case, any terms and conditions of contract had been violated. A straightway jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 9 of 1996 Act, cannot be invoked.

In view of the aforementioned observations, the present appeal is not maintainable.

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 19, 2016 jt JYOTI 2016.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court