Karnataka High Court
New Mangalore Port Trust vs Suraj Agro Infrastructure (India) ... on 7 March, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
M.F.A. No.8588/2014
C/W
M.F.A.No.6303/2014 (AA)
IN MFA No.8588/2014:
BETWEEN
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
PANAMBUR
NEW MANGALORE - 575 010.
...APPELLANT
(By Sri K G RAGHAVAN, Sr.COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAYAPPA HADAGALI, ADVOCATE-
DUA ASSOCIATES)
AND
1. SURAJ AGRO INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED 3RD FLOOR,
ST. THOMAS BUILDING,
150, LUZ CHURCH ROAD,
MYLAPORE,
CHENNAI - 600 004.
2
2. SRI P M ABRAHAM, I.A.S.(RETD.)
T.C. IV.1996, MUMMY's COLONY (No.8)
KAUDIR,
THIRUVANANTHAPUR - 695 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE a/w
SRI MOHD. RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
Notice to R-2 dispensed with v/o dated 15/10/2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(a) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED IN
ARBITRATION SUIT No.7/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA
KANNADA, MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED U/S 34
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT.
IN MFA No.6303/2014:
BETWEEN
SURAJ AGRO INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/s.UNIVERSAL AGRO PRODUCE
EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
601, RAJA STREET, COIMBATORE- 641 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Mr.N.PRAKASH.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE a/w
SRI MOHD. RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE)
3
AND
THE NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD
OF TRUSTEES THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN PANAMBUR
NEW MANGALORE - 575 010.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri K G RAGHAVAN, Sr.COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAYAPPA HADAGALI, ADVOCATE-
DUA ASSOCIATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(a) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED IN A.A.No.9/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
D.K.,MANGALORE, DISMISSING AA No.9/2014 UNDER SECTION
9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JAYANT PATEL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
We may record that both the appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned District Judge in the Arbitration Suit No.7/2014 as well as in Arbitration Application No.9/2014.
2. After the matter was argued for some time, Mr. K G Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.8588/2014, declared before the 4 Court that his client is accepting the award and not pursuing the proceedings of Section 34 application for setting aside of the award.
3. In view of the aforesaid declaration, MFA No.8588/2014 would not survive and the appeal shall stand disposed off accordingly.
4. However, insofar as MFA No.6303/2014, it is for interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the arbitration proceedings are concluded and the arbitration suit is also concluded by the declaration made and recorded hereinabove that the New Mangalore Port Trust is accepting the award, we do not find that the question may arise for any interim measure to be considered pending the execution of the arbitration award. Resultantly, the proceedings of Arbitration Application No.9/2014 as such, can be said to have become infructuous on account of disposal of MFA No.8588/2014.
5
5. However, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.6303/2014 contended that pending the appeal, there was an interim injunction granted by this Court prohibiting the New Mangalore Port Trust from encashing the Bank Guarantee of Rs.12 Crore. He submitted that as the present proceedings are to be concluded today, since the appeal by the New Mangalore Port Trust is disposed off and consequently, the question of interim measure would also no more survive, his client will have to resort to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for prohibiting New Mangalore Port Trust from encashing the Bank Guarantee.
6. Whereas, Mr. K G Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the New Mangalore Port Trust contended that such proceedings even if resorted to, the right and contentions of both sides may be kept open.
7. In our view, we need not address on the merits of the proceedings, which are yet to be resorted to. However, as the interim arrangement was in operation not 6 to encash the Bank Guarantee till today, we find that some reasonable time can be considered.
8. We would have considered the matter for further interim order for grant of some time, so as to enable the party to approach the appropriate forum. But, Mr. K G Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the New Mangalore Port Trust has declared before us that for a period of two weeks from today, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed.
9. Hence, we direct the New Mangalore Port Trust to abide by the declaration.
10. However, we also clarify that if any proceedings are resorted to by the appellant in MFA No.6303/2014 for prohibiting the New Mangalore Port Trust from encashing the Bank Guarantee, the rights and contentions of both sides shall remain open and the appropriate court or forum shall be at liberty to take independent view of the matter. 7
11. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, MFA No.6303/2014 shall also stand disposed off as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE mv