C N MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. C G BABU
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
Koshy, J. -
(1.) The appellants and the respondents entered into a partnership as per partnership deed dated 31.3.1993 for carrying on business as retail dealers of all varieties of Indian made foreign liquor. The partnership deed contained an arbitration clause for resolving disputes between the partners by referring the disputes and to nominate an Arbitrator.
(2.) The appellants approached this Court and this Court by order dated 10.3.2003 appointed a retired district Judge as Arbitrator. Meanwhile, the appellants approached the District Court, palakkad under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to appoint a Receiver as an interim measure pending arbitration proceedings. The respondents objected saying that the petitions are not maintainable and the same were accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) Section 37 of the Act reads as follows:
Appealable orders : - (i) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely: - a) Granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; b) Setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral Tribunal. a) Accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (z) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or b) Granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 1. Section 37(1)(a) makes it very clear that granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9 of the Act is appealable. Dismissing an application as not maintainable will amount to refusal and it is an appealable order. Therefore, the objection raised by the registry is not correct. Number the appeal and post for admission.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.