Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 3010 Del
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2009
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 27.7.2009
Date of Order: 4th August, 2009
OMP No. 483/2008
% 04.08.2009
SAN-A Trading Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Ms. Lakshmi
Ramamurthy and Ms. Shiela Arora, Advocate
Versus
I.C.Textiles Ltd. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yoginder Handoo, 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?
ORDER
This application has been made by the petitioner under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, requesting the Court to appoint a Court
Receiver to take custody of the concerned machines and the Receiver, so
appointed should give a report about the conditions of the concerned machines
and the Court should pass directions for safe custody of preservation of
machines.
2. The petitioner by an interim award of the Arbitrator has been
allowed to repossess the machines lying at the premises of the respondent. I
consider that in view of the order passed by the learned Arbitrator for
repossession of the machines, this Court need not appoint a Receiver to take
custody of the machines since the custody of the machines is to go to the
petitioner. This Court also need not pass an order for keeping the safe custody
of machines and preservation of machines for the same reason. It is for the
petitioner to repossess the machines and keep them in safe custody in terms of
the award. However, the petitioner may move the Court if necessary, if there is
any resistance in taking over possession of the machines.
With these directions, this petition is disposed of.
August 04, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!