Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: s.319 in Mashreq Bank Psc vs Indian Overseas Bank on 13 September, 2021Matching Fragments
C/FA/319/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2021
35. IOB's actions in presenting the "discrepancies" constitute an anticipatory breach of contract by IOB, causing losses to MBNY.
36. Such anticipatory breach occurred prior to the issuance of the Stay Order, and MBNY's cause of action accrued prior to the issuance of the Stay Order. :
63 Section 9 of the Act is attracted only if the nature of dispute is subject matter of Arbitration proceedings or agreement. It does not contemplate any such relief which does not stem from the Arbitration Proceedings or the disputes referred to in arbitration for adjudication. The Kerala High Court in the case of Shoney Sanil V. M/s. Coastal Foundations (P) Ltd. and others (AIR 2006 KERALA 206) was pleased to lay down as under: "The interim measures which are conceived by the Legislature while enacting S.9 are those interim measures which C/FA/319/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/09/2021 relate to the arbitration agreement between the parties and being interim, they are to confine to the matters relating to the arbitration agreement between the parties. This intention is explicit from the opening words of S.9, which provides for the party to apply for interim measure. On a plain reading of S.9 and going by the scheme of the said Act, there is no room to hold that by an interim measures under S.9, the rights of third party, holding possession on the basis of a Court sale could be interfered with, injuncted or subjected to proceedings under S.9. Section 9 contemplates issuance of interim measures by the Court only at the instance of a party to an arbitration agreement with regard to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement. This can be only as against the party to an arbitration agreement, or, at best, against any person claiming under him. The petitioner is a third party auction purchaser in whose favour is a sale certificate, followed by delivery of possession. He cannot therefore, be subjected to proceedings under S.9, initiated on the basis of an alleged arbitral agreement between the respondents.