M/S Tanita Sanjauli Parking Private Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Shimla on 22 July, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

M/S Tanita Sanjauli Parking Private Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Shimla on 22 July, 2019

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

    HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                               .

                                         Arb. Case No.61 of 2018
                                         Date of decision: 22.07.2019





    M/s Tanita Sanjauli Parking Private Ltd.                       ..... Petitioner.
               Versus
    Municipal Corporation Shimla                                 ..... Respondent.



    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No

    For the petitioner                   :        Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with
                                                  Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate.



    For the respondent                   :        Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)

By way of this petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the following prayers were made by the petitioner:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the operation of letter dated 6.8.2018 Annexure P-10 issued by the respondent may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case".

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:27 :::HCHP 3

2. On 31.8.2018, this Court had directed the respondent herein to maintain status-quo, qua the action taken or proposed .

to be taken in pursuance to Annexure P-10. Said order still is in force. This Court has been informed that in terms of the Arbitration Agreement in the contract, which has been entered into between the parties, the dispute between the parties now stands referred to the learned Arbitrator.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, thus prays that it will be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Arbitrator for grant of interim protection in favour of the petitioner and till the application to be so filed by the present petitioner is disposed of by the learned Arbitrator, the interim protection granted by this Court be permitted to continue.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no objection to the said arrangement, however, there may be direction isued to the learned Arbitrator that in case any such application is filed by the present petitioner, then the same be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of any application for interim relief being filed by the present petitioner before him, within a period of one month from today, the same be decided by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law, on merit, after adhering to the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:27 :::HCHP 3 principles of natural justice, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said application. Till the application is disposed of .

by the learned Arbitrator, the interim protection granted by this Court i.e. to say that wherein the respondent herein has been directed to maintain status-quo, qua the action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of Annexure P-10 appended with the petition, shall continue to operate. Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.

Copy dasti.

(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge July 22, 2019 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:27 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court