Madan Gopal Maheshwari Prop. Of ... vs P.K. Gadodia (Prop.) M/S P.K. ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2297 Del

                                                   UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              FAO No.128/2009

                                     Date of Decision: April 29, 2010


       MADAN GOPAL MAHESHWARI PROP. OF M/S SHREE PAPER
       TRADERS                      ..... Appellant
                    through Mr. Hitendra Kumar Nahata,
                    Advocate

                     versus

       P.K. GADODIA (PROP.) M/S P.K. GADODIA TRADERS & ORS
                                        ..... Respondents
                      through Mr. Ravinder K. Rawat, Advocate for
                      respondent No.1.
                      Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for respondents
                      No.2 & 3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

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

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional

District Judge, Shri Chandra Bose dated February 06, 2009 dismissing

the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The appellant in his petition under Section 9 of the Act had

prayed for a restraint order against the respondents, their agents,

representatives, associates, from selling, alienating, transferring or

creating any third party interest in respect of his immovable

property - Plot No.892, Pocket-3, admeasuring 98 Sq. Meters situated

at IFC Gazipur, Delhi and from parting with the possession of the suit

property to any third party till the disposal of the arbitration case

titled as Madan Gopal Maheshwari Versus P.K.Gadodia.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that

the arbitrator has since given his award and that as the relief sought

in the petition under Section 9 of the Act was only till the disposal of

the arbitration case, the present appeal has become infructuous.

The award that has been made by the arbitrator is in favour of

the appellant and yet the appellant has filed the present appeal. He

says that he has done so because he apprehends that the impugned

order passed under Section 9 of the Act dismissing the prayer made

therein can come in the way of his executing the award. In my view,

the apprehension of the appellant is wholly misconceived. Any order

passed under Section 9 of the Act is interim in nature. Even if the

appellant had succeeded in obtaining the order as was prayed for in

the petition under Section 9 of the Act, such an order would have

enured for his benefit only till the passing of the award. Thereafter, in

any case the parties were to be governed as per the award.

For what has been noticed above, the appellant is free to move

for execution of the award regardless of the order passed under

Section 9 of the Act and the respondents if it so chooses may file

objections to the award as per law.

There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

APRIL 29, 2010 ka