Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2001 DIGILAW 107 (SC)

Ganesh Benzo Plast Ltd. v. Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd.

2001-01-15

A.P.MISRA, B.N.AGRAWAL

body2001
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High court referring the matter to the Arbitration with a direction to the appellants to pay a sum of Rupees twenty lakhs on or before 4th September,2000 and thereafter to pay Rupees eight lakhs per month starting from 15th October,2000 and continue to pay such payment till the passing of Arbitration award. There is also a default clause to which we need not refer for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. 3. The short point for consideration is whether High Court was right while referring the matter to the Arbitrator to order for such payment when the amount itself is in dispute to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. The submission for the appellants is that the High Court was not right to direct such payment including instalments when the same is under dispute. Further there was no need to pass such an order in view of the provision under the 1996 Arbitration Act which empowers the Arbitrator to pass an interlocutory order which it deem fit and proper. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent states there is some amount which is not in dispute but the same could not be quantified in the absence of any affidavit in reply. The affidavit which was filed was urged not to be looked into as that would have led to grating time to the other side to reply, which delay he wanted to avoid. 4. We are further informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in pursuance to the order of the court the appellants have already deposited Rupees twenty lakhs during the pendency of this appeal itself. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on the facts of this case, the order impugned cannot be sustained but on the facts of this case, we further direct the appellants to deposit a further sum of Rupees ten lakh within a period of four weeks from today. The balance amount if any and other disputes which have been referred to the Arbitrator may be agitated before the Arbitrator itself including any further interlocutory relief. 5. We are making it clear that any observation made by us hereinabove is without prejudice of the rights of the parties. 6. The balance amount if any and other disputes which have been referred to the Arbitrator may be agitated before the Arbitrator itself including any further interlocutory relief. 5. We are making it clear that any observation made by us hereinabove is without prejudice of the rights of the parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid findings, the order of the High Court stands substituted by the present order. Accordingly, this appeal in terms hereinbefore is disposed of. Costs on the parties.