Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe ... vs Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3903 Bom

              Digitally
              signed by
              PRASHANT
     PRASHANT VILAS
     VILAS    RANE
     RANE     Date:
              2022.04.11
              19:39:38
              +0530




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                   IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

                    INTERIM APPLICATION (L.) No. 8744 OF 2022
                                      IN
              COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 23525 OF 2021
Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.                                    ..Applicant
in the matter between
Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd.                                    .. Petitioner
        Vs.
Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.                                    ..Respondent

Mr. Zal Andhyarijuna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr.
Subhash Jadhav, Mr. Amit Patil, Mr. Vinit Kamdar and Ms. Shruti
Sardessai i/b. Parinam Law Associates for Petitioner.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ammar Faizullabhoy, Mr. Nayan
Parjiea, Ms. Virit Dhanki and Ms. Vibhuti Keny, i/b. Olive Law for
Respondent/Applicant.
                                     -----

                                   CORAM :   G.S. KULKARNI, J.

                                   DATE :    11 APRIL 2022
P.C.:

1. The above commercial arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was disposed of by a judgment

pronounced today.

2. This interim application was filed by the applicant/respondent after the

above Seciton 9 petition was closed for judgment on 3 March 2022 inter alia

contending that the applicant/respondent is seeking leave to place on record

subsequent developments (post the closing of the proceedings for judgment),

namely, a possession notice being issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI

Act by the lender - Union Bank of India on 9 March, 2022. It is contended that in view of such notice by applying the provisions of Rule 8 of the Security

Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the authorized officer of the Union Bank

of India is now in possession of the co-gen plant, who is entitled to take all

steps as he deems fit to preserve it. It is hence contended that the petitioner

cannot seek possession of the co-gen plant. Also, a plea under Sections 16 and

41 of the Specific Relief Act has been reiterated to contend that the petitioner

is disentitled from seeking specific performance of the PDA or seek any interim

injunction.

3. In my opinion, the contentions as raised by the applicant/respondent in

the present application cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court in its

orders passed on the Section 9 petition, in no manner has precluded the bank

from proceeding with whatever action it has initiated. The bank is not even a

party to the present proceedings. The relief as granted by this Court on the

Section 9 proceedings, is specific inasmuch as the respondent is restrained

from interfering in the petitioner's conducting, operating and managing the co-

gen plant.

4. The applicant's/respondent's contentions also on the provisions of

Section 16 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, have been considered in the

judgment pronounced by this Court, which already stand rejected. In any

event, by such interim order, there is no question of the Court considering any

issue of specific performance of the contract (PDA) between the parties at the

interim stage.

5. In these circumstnaces, the interim application is devoid of any merit. It

is accordingly rejected, leaving it open to the applicant to raise the issues

under the SARFAESI Act, in appropriate proceedings. All contentions of the

parties theroen are expressly kept open.

(G.S. Kulkarni, J.)