Pravat Ku. Parida vs O.S.R.T.C. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1525 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  ARBA No.10 Of 2020
                                 (Through hybrid mode)

            Pravat Ku. Parida                        ....             Appellant

                                          Mr. A.K.Mohapatra(1), Advocate
                                        -versus-

            O.S.R.T.C. and another                   ....         Respondents

                                                     Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                        ORDER

24 .02.2022 Order No.

04. 1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, appears on behalf of

appellant and submits, impugned is judgment dated 19th February,

2020, whereby the Court below rejected his client's petition for

interim measure under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996. His client wanted interim measure restraining respondents from

evicting him on purportedly canceling the licence. The Court below

relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Himangni Enterprises

Vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5137,

threw out his client's petition saying, the disputes are not arbitrable.

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents

and submits, there could be no interim measure on other grounds being

// 2 //

that where period of licence has expired, the Supreme Court in Cox &

Kings Ltd. Vs. Indian Rly. Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.,

reported in AIR 2012 SC 3391, paragraphs 23 and 24 said interim

measure cannot be granted.

3. It appears to be admitted position that parties have a licence,

one of the terms being arbitration agreement. There is no special

statute governing the licence, providing for the dispute resolution

mechanism to oust the arbitration agreement. Himangni Enterprises

(supra) was subsequently dealt with by larger Bench of the Supreme

Court in Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corp., reported in (2021) 2

SCC 1, paragraphs 79 and 80. By impugned judgment the Court

below has erred in appreciating position of law declared on

arbitrability

4. Respondents' contention before this Court regarding interim

measure not available to a petitioner where based on expired licence

was not before the Court below.

5. In the circumstances, impugned order is set aside and the

petition restored to the Court below for hearing afresh.

6. The appeal is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant