Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1261 (MAD)

Aghora Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v. P. R. Selvarajan

2014-06-11

M.JAICHANDREN, M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This original side appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 25.3.2014, made in O.A.No.40 of 2014 and A.No.782 of 2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing for appellant, had stated that the appellant is a private limited company, established under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at No.171, Luz Church Road, 2nd street, Mylapore, Chennai. The appellant had filed an application, in A.No.782 of 2014, in O.A.No.40 of 2014, praying that an order be passed directing the respondent in the said application to furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,29,00,109/-. However, the learned single Judge, while passing the order, dated 25.3.2014, in O.A.40 of 2014, and in Application A.Nos.782, 1315 and 1992 of 2014, had also dismissed the application in A.No.782 of 2014, without the said application having been listed for hearing on the said date and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further submitted that the appellant had entered into an agreement, with the respondent, for the sale of certain scrap materials, on 30.9.2013, which were stocked in the sites bearing Nos.9 and 10, Elaiya Mudalai street, Tondiarpet, Chennai. The total consideration paid for the same was Rs.2,00,00,109/-. Even though the appellant had agreed to purchase 70.32 tonnes of the materials, it was found that the weight of the materials was only 48 tonnes. Like wise, there are certain other discrepancies in the available materials, contrary to those which had been mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, a dispute had arisen between the appellant and the respondent. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed an application, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the grant of an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, from alienating or parting with the materials available in the sites in question. Even though an order of interim injunction had been granted, the same had been vacated, during the course of the hearing of the application. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed an Application, in A.No.782 of 2014. 5. Even though an order of interim injunction had been granted, the same had been vacated, during the course of the hearing of the application. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed an Application, in A.No.782 of 2014. 5. The learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 25.3.2014, vacating the interim injunction granted by an order, dated 23.1.2014, in O.A.No.40 of 2014, restraining the respondent therein from alienating or parting with the possession of the machinery, sheds, tanks, cables and scraps, described in Annexure-I of the agreement, dated 30.9.2013. The applicant, in Application No.1992 of 2014, had been directed to remove the materials mentioned in the counter affidavit, dated 21.3.2014, within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. Accordingly, O.A.No.40 of 2014, stood dismissed, as not pressed. However, the learned single Judge had also dismissed the Application, in A.No.782 of 2014, without the said application having been listed for hearing on the said date and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had not refuted the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. In such circumstances, the Registry is directed to list the Application, in A.No.782 of 2014, before the learned single Judge, for being heard and disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, as it is clear that no hearing had taken place in respect of the said Application, on 25.3.2014. The learned single Judge may hear the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 8. Accordingly, the present original side appeal stands allowed, with the above direction to the Registry to list the application, in A.No.782 of 2014, for further hearing before the learned single Judge, at the earliest. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.