Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Hardy Exploration & Production (India) vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation on 30 January, 2019

Author: M.M.Sundresh

Bench: M.M.Sundresh, Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                         1


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 30.01.2019

                                                      Coram

                                     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                        and
                                 The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                                O.S.A.No.3 of 2018


                      Hardy Exploration & Production (India)
                            Inc., having its Office at
                      5th Floor, Westminister Building,
                      108, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
                      Chennai - 4.                                   ..   Appellant


                                                        Vs

                      1.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
                             Ltd., CMDA Building Tower II,
                        7th Floor, South Wing,
                        1, Ganesh Irwin Road, Egmore,
                        Chennai - 8.

                      2.Hindustan Oil Exploration Company
                            Ltd., Lakshmi Chambers,
                        192, St. Mary's Road, Alwarpet,
                        Chennai - 28.

                      3.Tata Petrodyne Ltd.,
                        3rd Floor, Metropolitan,
                        Bandra Kurla Complex,
                        Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 053.               ..   Respondents




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                          2



                            Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules          r/w

                      Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and

                      Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order    dated 30.11.2017 made in

                      O.A.No.346 of 2017.


                                  For Appellant     ..    Mr.P.R.Raman,
                                                          Sr. Counsel
                                                          for M/s.Vinod Kumar

                                  For Respondents ..      Mr.M.Vijayan
                                                          for M/s.King and Patridge for R1
                                                          Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan for R2
                                                          Mr.Srinath Sridevan for R3

                                                    JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This appeal is filed against the dismissal of the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, in the meanwhile, award has been reserved by the Foreign Arbitration Tribunal. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that no adjudication is necessary in this appeal.

2.Inasmuch as the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the question of law with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the basis that the amendment http://www.judis.nic.in 3 made to Section 2 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we deem it appropriate to leave the said issue open to be decided at the appropriate stage as undertaking the said exercise in this case would be of mere academic in nature.

3.Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands disposed of, leaving the legal issue open. Consequently, the findings and reasoning rendered by the learned single Judge leading to her conclusion are also eschewed. We observe so, also on the ground that the appeal is the continuation of the original proceedings, though admittedly, it is not a matter of right. Secondly, this Court should also exercise the power permitting the appellant to withdraw the appeal. There is yet another reason for the order passed. Depending upon the award to be passed, both the parties may also approach this Court and raise their respective contentions, which situation we do not want to preempt at this stage. Thus, we leave the doors open to the parties to raise all the issues both on law and on facts, if they desire to do so. No costs.

(M.M.S.J.,) (K.R.J.,) 30.01.2019 Index:Yes/No mmi http://www.judis.nic.in 4 To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in 5 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

mmi O.S.A.No.3 of 2018 30.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in