Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Silpa Projects And Infrastructure (I) ... vs Asten Realtors Private Limited on 18 February, 2022

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

     ITEM NO.12                    Court 12 (Video Conferencing)             SECTION XI-A
                                   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).    2236/2022

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-12-2021 in OPC
     No. 1163/2021 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)

     SILPA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

     ASTEN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED                                            Respondent(s)

     (IA No.21221/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

     Date : 18-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
                             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

     For Petitioner(s)                 Mr.   Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
                                       Mr.   Sriram P., AOR
                                       Mr.   Ramesh K., Adv.
                                       Mr.   Vishnu Ramesh, Adv.
     For Respondent(s)
                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

By the impugned order, the High Court has modified the order of attachment passed by the learned Commercial Court passed in an Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and substituted it by directing the respondent to furnish the security. We see no reason to interfere with the same.

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has then submitted that the security which is furnished is not adequate and not proper security and therefore the applicant proposes to approach the Court which passed the order under Section 9 on the adequacy of the security. It will be open for the applicant to move for the same for which we are not expressing anything on merits. As and when such application is made, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits, if Signature Not Verified otherwise permissible.

The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application stands disposed of.

     (R. NATARAJAN)                                                   (NISHA TRIPATHI)
     ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                                            BRANCH OFFICER