PLUS CORPORATE VENTURES PVT LTD v. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD & ANR

Delhi High Court · 13 Jan 2015 · 2015:DHC:11689
S. Muralidhar
O.M.P. 1179/2014
2015:DHC:11689
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that interim orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act continue during arbitration and disposed of the petitions while allowing parties to rely on pleadings before the arbitral tribunal.

Full Text
Translation output
$, (no HIGH COURT OF DELHI
O.M.P. 1179/2014
PLUS CORPORATE VENTURES PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Airi with Ms. Shryti Agarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Midha, Advocate.
WITH
O.M.P. 1180/2014
YUTHIKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
WITH
O.M.P. 1181/2014
MARUBHUMI DEALER PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
El OMP No. 1179 of 2014 :DHC:11689
Through: Mr. Ruchir Midha, Advocates.
WITH
O.M.P. 1182/2014
KALYANI BARTER PVT. LTD. Petitioner
VERSUS
RELIGARE FIN VEST LTD & ANR Respondents
WITH
O.M.P. 1183/2014
PRANIDHI COMMERCE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD & ANR .....Respondents
WITH
O.M.P. 1451/2014
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD Petitioner OMP No. 1179 of 2014 Page 2ofs
2015:DHC:11689 1)0
VERSUS
KALYANI BARTER PVT. LTD & ORS .....Respondents
WITH
O.M.P. 1452/2014
VERSUS
YUTHIKA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. & ANR .....Respondents
WITH
O.M.P. 1454/2014
VERSUS
MADHUBHUMI DEALER PVT. LTD. & ANR .....Respondents
WITH
O.M.P. 1456/2014
OMP No. 1179 of 2014 Page 3ofs LIFINMW PRANIDHI COMMERCE PVT. LTD. & ANR .....Respondents
And
O.M.P. 1457/2014
VERSUS
PLUS CORPORATE VENUTRES PVT. LTD.
& ANR Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
13.01.2015
ORDER

1. These are petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') in which the interim orders have been passed from time to OMP No. 1179 of 2014 Page 4ofS time. The affidavits have also been filed by the parties giving certain undertakings. The applications for appointment of the arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act are listed on 201h January 2015.

2. In the circumstances, the Court does not see any reason why these petitions should be kept pending.

3. The Court directs that the interim orders passed in the present petitions, including undertakings given by the parties by way of affidavits, will continue during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings subject to any orders that may be passed by way of modification and/or clarification by the arbitral Tribunal in an application that may be filed by any of the parties under Section 17 of the Act. •

4. It will be open to the parties to rely on the pleadings in these petitions before the arbitral Tribunal.

5. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Order be given dasti.

S. MURALIDHAR, J