Delhi High Court
Excel Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs Cogent Ventures India Ltd. & Ors. on 2 April, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 31.3.2009
Date of Order: 2nd April, 2009
OMP No. 355/2006
% 02.04.2009
Excel Castings Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Goel, Advocate
Versus
Cogent Ventures India Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K.Pandey, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This application/petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents
with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from disposing, selling or
creating third party interest in property no. 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New
Delhi till the arbitral award was made, and in case the award being in favour of
the petitioner, till it was fully satisfied.
2. The petitioner had entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the
respondents and under this Tripartite Agreement the petitioner was to
renovate/construct/reconstruct building at the above premises and to do interiors
and other maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner successfully completed
its part of the obligation as per the agreement and renovated the structure at the
ground floor including interiors, flooring, POP, glasswork etc. in accordance with
directions and consent of the respondents. However, the respondents failed to
make payment of Rs.23.80 lac which was the amount due from the respondents
in terms of the agreement and work done. The petitioner, therefore, filed an
application before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the
agreement between the parties. The petitioner filed the present
application/petition for interim protection.
3. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents.
Respondents put appearance however, no reply was filed. Thereafter, parties
sought time for negotiating a settlement and an interim order was passed
directing respondents to maintain status-quo. In the meantime, this
application/petition was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. It was again
restored on an application by the petitioner and an order was made for issuance
of notice to the respondents, interim order was also restored. Against, the
petitioner did not take steps for service of the respondents and the interim order
was vacated and the matter came up for final hearing.
4. It is seen that the respondents despite several opportunities have
not filed reply to the application/petition. There is no doubt that there is a dispute
between the parties in respect of the accounts and the accounts of the petitioner
are yet to be settled in terms of the agreement between the parties. There is an
arbitration clause according to which the dispute between the parties has to be
referred to the arbitration. In order to secure the petitioner's amount, I consider
that it would be necessary that respondents be restrained from selling or
disposing of the property in question till the dispute of the parties is adjudicated
by the Arbitrator. I, therefore, allow this application/petition and it is directed that
the respondents shall not sell property no. 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New
Delhi till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated by the Arbitrator and
award is passed.
April 02, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
