SOMDATT BUILDERS (P) LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-174
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on
April 12,2013
Somdatt Builders (P) Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Civil Judge. (Senior Division) I, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 2012 dated 25th July, 2012, whereby, application for interim relief preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected. The prayer was for restraining the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee.
(2.)IT is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that during the process of appointment of the Arbitrator, an application was preferred under Section 9 before the Civil Judge, (Senior. Division) I, Ranchi for interim relief and the same was not decided on 11th July, 2012 and, therefore, on earlier occasion a W.P. (C) No. 3961 of 2012 was preferred which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2012 upon statement made by the respondents that they are not going to encash the bank guarantee till the application under Section 9 preferred by the appellant is being decided by the Civil Judge. (Senior Division) I, Ranchi and now finally on 25th July, 2012, the said application has been rejected. Thereafter, this appeal is preferred, in which, stay has been granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 against the encashment of the bank guarantee.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the arbitration is going on before the Arbitral Tribunal and the respondents are seeking time to file one after another application. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that let the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 be continued till the application under Section 17 be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and this appeal may be disposed of.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that arbitration proceeding may be brought to an end within stipulated time by finally disposing of this arbitration appeal and let the application be preferred under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 and the same will be decided in accordance with law by the Arbitral Tribunal.
(2.)IT is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that during the process of appointment of the Arbitrator, an application was preferred under Section 9 before the Civil Judge, (Senior. Division) I, Ranchi for interim relief and the same was not decided on 11th July, 2012 and, therefore, on earlier occasion a W.P. (C) No. 3961 of 2012 was preferred which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2012 upon statement made by the respondents that they are not going to encash the bank guarantee till the application under Section 9 preferred by the appellant is being decided by the Civil Judge. (Senior Division) I, Ranchi and now finally on 25th July, 2012, the said application has been rejected. Thereafter, this appeal is preferred, in which, stay has been granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 against the encashment of the bank guarantee.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the arbitration is going on before the Arbitral Tribunal and the respondents are seeking time to file one after another application. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that let the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 be continued till the application under Section 17 be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and this appeal may be disposed of.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that arbitration proceeding may be brought to an end within stipulated time by finally disposing of this arbitration appeal and let the application be preferred under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 and the same will be decided in accordance with law by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.