Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Board Of Trustees Of V O Chidambarnar ... vs Psa Sical Terminal Ltd. on 10 August, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.5 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 (C) No(s). 20971/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/06/2015
in OP No. 389/2014 passed by the High Court Of Madras)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF V O CHIDAMBARNAR PORT TRUST Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PSA SICAL TERMINAL LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
judgment and permission to place addl. documents on record and
interim relief and office report)
Date : 10/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Zerick Dastur, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Sethi, Adv.
Ms. Ashlesha Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Dheeraj Nair,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Signature Not VerifiedThe present special leave petition calls in question the legal Digitally signed by propriety of the order dated 09.06.2015 passed by the High Court Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.08.11 17:47:31 IST of Madras in Original Petition No.389 of 2014 whereby the High Reason:
Court has opined that the application preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before it is not maintainable. The learned Judge, after so holding, has proceeded 2 to state thus :
“38. Therefore, in view of my finding on the first issue that there was no novation, the petitioner ought not to have filed this petition under Section 34 before this Court. The petitioner ought to have filed this original petition only befoer the Principal District Court, Tuticorin. Therefore, office is directed to return this original petition to the petitioner, so as to enable them to present the original petition before the Principal District Court, Tutucorin. The petitioner is granted time till 30.06.2015 (in view of the ensuing summer vacation) to take back the original petition and re-present the same before the Principal District Court.” Be it noted that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has already filed the application under Section 34 of the Act in the Principal District Court, Tuticorin.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are only inclined to direct that the said application shall be treated to be within limitation and the concerned court shall finalized the same in accordance with law within a span of six months from today.
As far as the deposit of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crore only) made by the respondent in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 31.03.2015 in SLP No.1526 of 2015 is concerned, the said order is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees seven crore only) that is lying in deposit before the High Court of Madras. Rest of the amount, i.e., Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crore only) shall remain in deposit. Needless to say, the said deposit shall be governed by the ultimate result of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the concerned court. It is hereby made clear that the competent court shall not seek any extension of time from this Court and also not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master