Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mstc Limited vs K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited on 2 February, 2018
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
02/02/2018
(1) m.d.
F.M.A. 982 of 2017
MSTC Limited
-Vs-
K.A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury
Ms. Noelle Banerjee
Mr. Dipak Dey
Mr. Dipanjan Dey
.. for the appellant
Ms. Chameli Majumdar
Mr. Advait M. Sethna
Ms. R. R. Thakker
Mr. Basudev Rakshit
.. for the respondent
The principal point in issue in this appeal from a final order passed on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was whether the court could pronounce on the merits in a pre-reference petition under Section 9 of the Act after the 2015 amendment to the Act. In such connection, a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at AIR 2016 Cal.213 (Tufan Chatterjee v. Rangan Dhar) has been cited by the parties.
However, the parties have agreed, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending arbitral reference, that the order subsisting in this appeal may be continued for a limited duration for the appellant to approach the arbitrator under Section 17 of the amended Act for the arbitrator to render a decision thereon. In other words, the parties agree that the 1996 Act as 1 2 amended in 2015 will apply and that the arbitrator will have the authority under amended Section 17 of the Act to decide on the interim measures and that the prayers that were carried by the appellant herein before the court below will be carried before the arbitrator by way of a fresh petition under Section 17 of the Act which the arbitrator will be free to decide in accordance with law. The arbitrator is requested to ensure that a decision on such petition under Section 17 of the said Act as amended is rendered within four weeks of the petition being filed. The subsisting interim order will continue till the disposal of the petition by the arbitrator.
Though the appeal has not been disposed of on contest, which would have required a discussion on the dictum in Tufan Chatterjee, it is only observed in passing that the view expressed in such judgment may require a reconsideration, particularly in the light of the more appropriate view taken in a Delhi judgment reported at 2017 (2) Arb LR 163 (R.D. Infrastructure Private Limited v. Anuradha Bhatia).
F.M.A. 982 of 2017 is disposed of on the above basis. There will be no order as to costs.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) 2 3 3