SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The appeal arises out of an order dated January 3, 2019 by which the appellant's application for recalling an order passed on the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed. The petition had been dismissed earlier on December 3, 2018 as infructuous and the receiver earlier appointed by the Court in the same proceedings was directed to return the asset taken possession of to the respondents. Such order was passed on the apparent statement on behalf of the appellant that the matter had become infructuous. A prima facie view was taken in favour of the appellant when this appeal was received. It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that since under amended Section 9 of the 1996 Act, the Court does not pass a final order on a petition under Section 9 of the Act if an arbitral reference has already been commenced by then, the submission was made that though a receiver had already been appointed, the matter had become infructuous as far as this Court was concerned.
(2.) Such submission may have been misunderstood by the arbitration court and the order appointing receiver recalled by directing the receiver to hand back possession of the asset to the respondents though all that the appellant wanted was for the matter to be disposed of with liberty to the parties to work out their remedies in course of the arbitral reference.
(3.) Upon taking a prima facie view in favour of the appellant, the receiver appointed by the arbitration court, who had already made over possession of the asset to the respondents, was requested to obtain possession of such asset once again. The receiver has since taken possession of the asset and is in custody thereof.;