Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 497 (JHR)

Somdatt Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-12

D.N.PATEL

body2013
ORDER By the Court.- 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. In view of this limited submission and looking to the dispute between the parties, it appears that the Arbitral Tribunal has already started arbitration. 5. In view of this limited submission and looking to the dispute between the parties, it appears that the Arbitral Tribunal has already started arbitration. Initially also in W.P.(C) No. 3961 of 2012, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they shall not encash the bank guarantee till the application under Section 9 of the Act. 1996 is finally decided by the Civil Judge. (Senior Division) I, Ranchi. Now, it appears that the said application is finally decided vide order dated 25th July, 2012 and. thereafter again, this Court has granted stay vide order dated 30th July, 2012 against the encashment of the bank guarantee. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that they will prefer an application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996 before the Arbitral Tribunal for getting interim relief and till the said application is decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, let the stay granted by this Court be continued for temporary period and if such application is decided against the appellant, then necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this arbitration appeal is, hereby, disposed of with a direction that the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 shall be continued to be operative till the Arbitral Tribunal decides the application under Section 17 of the Act, 1996. The application under Section 17 shall be preferred within a period of one week from today, if it is not already filed. I also direct the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the application under Section 17 of the Act 1996, if it is already filed, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. The stay granted by this Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 in light of the aforesaid schedule will be continued only up to 6th May, 2013 up to 05:00 p.m. The stay shall be deemed to have been vacated, on or from the aforesaid, period of 6th May, 2013. If the Arbitral Tribunal is passing an order in favour of the appellant fur grant of the stay, then the said order will be operative. 7. This arbitration appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.