M/S The Next vs M/S Koutons Retail India Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5749 Del

$~25
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                 Judgement delivered on: 12.11.2014

+                  O.M.P. 1396/2014


M/S THE NEXT                                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.

                         versus

M/S KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LTD     ..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator, vide order dated 21.5.2012 has, evidently, closed the proceedings on account of the fact that the respondent herein, who was the original claimant, had not appeared before him. The Arbitrator has recorded that the respondent has abandoned the proceedings.

2. Counsel for the petitioner says that, vide order dated 29.11.2011 passed in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) by respondent, a direction was issued to the effect that the respondent will lift goods worth Rs.1 crore, which were in the custody, at that point in time, of the petitioner. These goods were, admittedly, of the respondent herein.

O.M.P. 1396/2014 page 1 of 2

3. In the present petition, which is also a petition under Section 9 of the Act, the prayer made is that a receiver be appointed to lift the goods lying with the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by this court.

4. The difficulty with the present petition is that the arbitration proceedings have come to an end. A petition under Section 9 of the Act can be maintained only in aid of an arbitration proceeding.

5. A perusal of Section 9 of the Act clearly demonstrate that a party can prefer a petition under the said provision before or during arbitration proceedings or at any time prior to the making of the award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the Act. 5.1 In this case, the Arbitrator has terminated the proceedings. Therefore, in my view, no petition under Section 9 of the Act would lie. 5.2 Having said so, the petitioner will, however, be free to take appropriate action for disposal of the goods by giving due notice to the respondent for lifting the goods, as indicated in the order dated 29.11.2011.

6. In case of failure on the part of the respondent to lift the goods, appropriate action may be taken by the petitioner in that behalf.

7. The petition is disposed of.

8. A copy of this order will be despatched by the Registry to the respondent without insistence on process fee.

                                                      RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 12, 2014
s.pal
O.M.P. 1396/2014                                                    page 2 of 2