Madras High Court
Gail (India) Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation on 26 October, 2016
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 26.10.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A. No.2418 of 2016 Gail (India) Ltd., No.7 A, Kences Towers, No.1, Ramakrishna Street, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Appellant versus Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep. by Managing Director, No.12, Thambuswamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 37(1) and (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the order in PMA/ZH/09/2016 passed by the Joint Secretary and Sole Arbitrator dated 21.04.2016 as confirmed by the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. For Appellant : Mr. P.V.S.Giridhar For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT
Gail (India) Limited, one of the parties to the arbitration proceedings, has brought the order dated 21.04.2016 made in PMA/ZH/09/2016 passed by the Joint Secretary and Sole Arbitrator directing the respondent/appellant herein not to take any adverse action against the claimant during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and another order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, fixing the case on 09.11.2016 for further hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when the bank guarantee, furnished in favour of the appellant, is going to be encashed, the learned Arbitrator, who has seized of the vacate stay petition to recall its order dated 21.04.2016, without even hearing before passing any further order on the vacate stay petition, has simply adjourned the matter. As a result, the appellant, in spite of having benefit of enjoying the bank guarantee, has been put under great prejudice.
3.Adding further, he would submit that even though the appellant was given the benefit of the encashment of bank guarantee during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the same may be permitted to be availed of, lest the purpose of giving bank guarantee will be of no use. Even otherwise, finally, in the event of passing an Award by the Arbitrator, the appellant is prepared to get the amount adjusted and therefore, there is no prejudice going to be faced by the respondent herein if the appellant is permitted to encash the same. This has been completely overlooked by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
4.But this Court finds no justification to entertain the appeal for two reasons. Firstly, when the appellant is a party to the proceedings, they are duty bound to maintain status quo till final adjudication is reached by the Arbitrator in the present case. Secondly, keeping in mind, these legal provisions and the order dated 21.04.2016, the learned Arbitrator has directed the respondent/appellant herein, not to take any adverse action against the claimant during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
5.Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 09.08.2016, fixing the case for further hearing on 09.11.2016, cannot be complained of by the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court to direct the learned Arbitrator to take up the vacate stay petition. I find some merits on the request seeking to take up the vacate stay petition, which is pending for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is disposed of, directing the learned Arbitrator to take up the vacate stay petition and consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
26.10.2016 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Note : Issue Order Copy on 01.11.2016 T.RAJA, J kal C.M.A. No.2418 of 2016 26.10.2016 C.M.A.No.2418 of 2016 T.RAJA, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under the caption for being mentioned at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court at paragraph 4 of the order observed that the appellant Company are duty bound to maintain the status till final adjudication is reached by the Arbitrator in the present case. Such observation, he pleaded, might cause hindrance to the Arbitrator to take up the pending vacate stay petition.
3. In view of the above, paragraph 5 of the judgment passed in the above said appeal on 26.10.2016 is modified as follows:
5. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 09.08.2016, fixing the case for further hearing on 09.11.2016, cannot be complained of by the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court to direct the learned Arbitrator to take up the vacate stay petition. I find some merits on the request seeking to take up the vacate stay petition, which is pending for consideration. It is also made clear that directing the parties to maintain the status quo as stated at paragraph No.4 does not preclude the Arbitrator to take up the pending vacate stay petition and pass orders in the manner known to law. No Costs. T.RAJA, J.
rkm
4. Except the above modifications, the judgment remains unaltered in all other aspects. Registry is directed to make the above said correction and reissue a copy of this judgment.
04.11.2016 rkm Note to Office:
Issue order copy on 07.11.2016 C.M.A.No.2418 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in