GLOBE PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. PRINTPAK MACHINERY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S.41 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) THERE was an agreement between the parties and the agreement contained an arbitration clause. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein came to the Calcutta High Court and filed a S.20 petition. THEREafter the respondent Printpak Machinery Ltd. went to the Delhi High Court and filed a S.20 petition. In order of time, the Calcutta High Court petition was earlier. In that view of the matter I held that the Calcutta High Court has been fixed with exclusive jurisdiction under S.31(4) of the Arbitration Act, and "the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that in the meantime by an order of the Delhi High Court a reference has been started. The petitioner before me has taken out a S.41 application and has obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting with the arbitration started pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court.

(3.) IT appears that in that case the Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. wanted to present a winding-up petition the Bank concerned, and the Bank wanted to restrain cotton corporation by obtaining an order of interim injunction from presenting that winding-up petition. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and on the facts and circumstances of that case the Supreme Court held as I have stated above. But the facts of that case were absolutely different from the facts of the case before me. In the present case I have already held that the S.20 proceeding in the Delhi High Court was not maintainable due to the fact that a similar application was made in this Court earlier and as such the order for reference passed by the Delhi High Court was without jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the reference started by the Delhi High Court being jurisdiction is invalid. In that view of the matter I restrained the respondent from proceeding with the said arbitration to prevent an abuse of the process of law resulting in infructuous expenditure by both the parties. No order of interim injunction has been issued restraining the respondent herein from prosecuting any matter pending before the Delhi High Court or from instituting any matter in the Delhi High Court. The order of injunction is against prosecuting the reference. Therefore, the Supreme Court case cited by Mr. Khanna has no application on the facts and circumstances of this case.