- (1.) This order, in whatever form it attains finality, would mark the end of the first chapter of a sordid saga that was the association of these two parties. The two petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed for similar reliefs. Both parties have approached the court for the contractor's machinery and equipment to be removed from the Haldia Dock Complex as urgently as practicable. Now that the glare of the arclights have moved from the acrimonious parting of ways of these parties, the nitty-gritties remain to be worked out to put a temporary seal on the divorce as the more protracted battle following the severance moves to the arbitral forum. The tribunal has been constituted and, as the parties inform, the pleadings are in the process of being filed.
(2.) At the ad interim stage of these petitions, the Port's prayer for an order in the nature of attachment before judgment was declined. However, two special officers were appointed for the purpose of ensuring the removal of all machinery, equipment and material belonging to the contractor from berth Nos. 2 and 8 of the Haldia Dock Complex as expeditiously as possible. The machinery and equipment include six mobile harbour cranes those over-sized metal chairs that stand out in modern ports and seem to be waiting for some gigantic Gulliver to occupy them which have taken considerable time to be dismantled and relocated at the berths or elsewhere in the Haldia Dock Complex. The ad interim order permitted the contractor to remove all its machinery, equipment and material without there being any fetters as to the use thereof and the special officers were only to supervise the dismantling of the cranes and the removal of all machinery, equipment and material of the contractor from the Dock Complex. On appeals preferred from the common order of December 13, 2012 passed at the ad interim stage of these matters, the time for complying with the ad interim order was extended till January 31, 2013, a third special officer was appointed to work with the two others and, more importantly, the ad interim order was modified by permitting the contractor to use its machines freely within the country upon notice to the special officers with a copy endorsed to the Port but with the special officers remaining in symbolic possession thereof. The appellate order of December 19, 2012 made it clear that the merits of the matter had not been gone into in great detail and left the petitions to be decided upon affidavits being filed before the arbitration court.
(3.) The contractor carried the order of December 19, 2012 by way of special leave petitions to the Supreme Court. Those petitions were disposed of on January 31, 2013 with the operative part of the order being as follows: "In view of the above, we do not consider it proper to express any opinion on the merits and demerits of the claim of the parties because that is likely to prejudice their cause and feel that ends of justice will be served by requesting the learned Single Judge of the High Court to hear the parties and pass final order on the interlocutory applications filed by them, as early as possible, but latest within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order in the Registry of the High Court without being influenced by the observations contained in orders dated 13.12.2012 and 19.12.2012 and the fact that one of the parties has travelled to this Court. Ordered accordingly. "The special leave petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above. "The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Calcutta High Court, who shall immediately place the same before the concerned Bench and seek direction for listing of the case.";