Delhi High Court
Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs International Breweries Ltd. & ... on 21 May, 2009
Author: Mukul Mudgal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 408/2008
Dated: 21st May, 2009
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate.
versus
INTERNATIONAL BREWERIES LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pradeep Dhingra & Sachin Sood,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
1. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated
4.9.2008 in I.A. No.9781/2008.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
(a) The appellant is a Limited Company existing under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at Solan Brewery Distt. Solan,
Shimla Hills, Himachal Pradesh and Corporate Office at Mohan Nagar,
FAO-OS-408/2008 Page 1
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
(b) The Respondent No.1 is a Company Registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at New Delhi.
(c) The Appellant and the Respondent No.1 had entered into an
Agreement dated 14.06.2001, which was subsequently extended by the letter
dated 26.7.2006 and thereafter another Brewing Agreement dated 1.5.2007
was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1.
(d) Sh. N.K.Tyagi who was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator, passed an
interim award dated 22.10.2007.
(e) The arbitration proceedings were concluded and the learned Arbitrator
passed the final award dated 23.4.2008.
(f) In the final award, it was held that the Appellant has to recover from
the Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.1,42,82,463.87 along with interest @ 7%
calculated w.e.f. 13.07.2007 till the date of recovery.
(g) It was further stated in the Final Award that the interim Award dated
22.7.2007 is also made final i.e. the respondent no.1 has been restrained
from operating or transferring funds from the accounts of its various banks.
(h) The said Banks refused to honour the award passed by the learned
Arbitrator stating that they are not bound by the same.
FAO-OS-408/2008 Page 2
(i) The Appellant thereafter filed an OMP being OMP No.332/2008
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein it was
prayed that the Respondent No.1 be restrained from operating and
transferring funds from the accounts held by it with the various Banks.
(j) The OMP came up before the learned Vacation Judge on 16.06.2008
who passed ex-parte order restraining the Banks from releasing the amount
of Rs.1,42,82,464/- from the bank account no.01213/ 000790 in Scotia
Bank, account no. 600520100012020 in Bank of India and account Nos.
0322320001305 & 0322002211363 in HDFC Bank and account no.
000705004892 in ICICI Bank.
(k) Subsequent to the passing of the said order and the implementation of
the said order dated 16.06.2008 by the Banks, the Respondent No.1 herein
filed Objections under Section 34 before this Hon'ble Court being OMP
No.337/2008.
(l) The objection of the counsel for the Appellant was rejected by the
learned Single Judge by its order dated 4.9.2008 and a notice was issued
against the Appellant as a result the appellant filed the FAO(OS)
No.342/2008.
3. A preliminary objection was raised before the learned Single Judge
FAO-OS-408/2008 Page 3
with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The learned Single
Judge while dismissing the application filed by the appellant after hearing
the preliminary objections held as follows:-
"17. Even otherwise, in my view, the procedure as
adopted by the Respondent/Applicant ought not to be
permitted. The Respondent/Applicant instead of filing
reply to the application under Section 34 of the Act
wants a piecemeal adjudication. It was put to the
counsel for the Respondent/Applicant on 29th August,
2008 that he may file the reply to the objections but he
refused to do so. The Petitioner has, in the application
under Section 34 of the Act invoked the jurisdiction of
this court by stating that a part of the cause of action has
arisen at Delhi and the Respondent/Applicant has its
sales office in Delhi and the orders to the
Respondent/Applicant were placed from Delhi and all
the payments against the invoices were made at Delhi
and numerous communications were made between the
parties at Delhi. The Respondent/Applicant is as yet to
reply to the application. The record of the Arbitral
proceedings has also not been received by this court as
yet and without the same, no view on the respective
contentions of the parties with respect to territorial
jurisdiction could be taken, leave apart the provision of
Section 42 of the Act."
4. The appellant has not yet filed a reply to the application and the court
of the learned Single Judge has also not received the record of the arbitration
proceedings. In this view of the matter, Mr. Agnani stated that he will not
press the issue of jurisdiction raised in this appeal at this stage so as to await
FAO-OS-408/2008 Page 4
the order of the learned Single Judge after the perusal of the reply to be filed
by the appellant. Accordingly, we are not pronouncing on the correctness of
the learned Single Judge's judgment but leave it open to the appellant to
raise the issue of jurisdiction upon the filing of the reply by the appellant
before the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, proper that we do not deal
with this issue of the correctness of the impugned order and it is open to the
respondent to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in accordance
with law, in case the learned Single Judge after perusing the reply to the
application and arbitrator's record holds against it.
The appeal stands disposed of.
MUKUL MUDGAL,J
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 21, 2009
ib
FAO-OS-408/2008 Page 5
