Full Text
Translation output
\...
A-3s o/o
27.0t.20LL
Present: Mr V.P.Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr Pradeep
R.Tiwari, Mr Sukumar and Mr Prafulla R.Tiwary, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr Saurav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent.
+ FAO(OS) 45-46/2O1L & CM Nos.L81-2-L8L5/2O1-1-
*
This is an Appeal against the Order dated
2O.t2.2OtO, by which the Review filed by the.Appellant before us was allowed. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant states that he does not press the Appeal, as regards Order dated
20.t2.201.0. The Appeal qua Order dated 20.L2.20t0 is dismissed, as not pressed.
The prayer before the Learned Single Judge in the
Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads thus:-
' '(a) Pass an ex-parLe order of Injunction staying the operation of the impugned letter dated t7.5.20t0 and further restrain the respondents or their agents from giving any effect to the impugned letter dated
L7.5.20L0 and other show cause notices till the final adjudication of the disputes in the arbitration proceedings. i?n
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Page 1. of 4
2011:DHC:11246-DB t
(b) Direct the respondent IRCTC to maintain status quo with respect to the works/services in Group
No.9 trains which are being currently operated by the petitioner and further restrain the respondent from causing any undue hindrance/interference in the perfonnance of the services till the dispute is finally aQjudicated in the arbitration proceedings;
(c) Direct the respondent IRCTC to either return or give a{ustments with interest @ 24% of the amount i.e. Rs 54,0L,LL51- and Rs 17,50,000/- of the petitioner which are lyrng unaccounted with
' respondent.
(d) Direct the respondent IRCTC to make immediate payrnents against the running bill of bed roll services of Rs 31_,87,9561- for the last 4 months and also to release such payments on time so that the petitioner could meet the day to day expenses of catering work;
(e) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble CourL may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
It is beyond the pale of controversy that the contract has now been terminated by the Respondent. on 25.5.20i-0 the following Order was passed:-
"..Mr Manish K.Bishnoi, learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that petitioner would deposit in the Registry of this Court a sum of Rs 36 lacs demanded by the respondent as licence fee within a period of six weeks from today. He however, prays that the running bills with regard to this contract of
Group 9 trains be processed and paid immediately. o.M.P.300120L0
Accordingly, respondent is directed to process and pay in accordance with the contract in question
1t
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Pagre 2 of 4 running bills with regard to Group 9 trains within a period of six weeks from today. Registry is directed to deposit the sum. of Rs 36 lacs in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a period of six months. Mr Agrawal further prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a reply affidavit.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 29ftJuy, 20L0.
_sd_
May 25, 201,0"
This Order was not challenged. Instead, I.A.
No.L56BB/20L0 was filed calling upon the Respondents to make payment of the said sum of { 36,24,377/- on the Appellant,s understanding of the order dated 25.5.20L0. By means of the impugned order the Learned single Judge has clarified that the intent of the Order dated 25.5.2010 was that the
Appellant/Petitioner must pay the aforementioned sum of
Respondents would have to draw up accounts and pay the
Petitioner/Appellant as per those accounts. In the impugned order, 'the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition observing that the initial sum of ( 36,24,377/- had not been paid.
We are in entire agreement with the impugned
Order. Furthermore, since the main prayer in the Section 9
Petition has been rendered infructuous, in that the contract has
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Pagre 3 of 4
7"r
\ been terminated, the substratum of the Petition itself has vanished. Accord.ingly, the learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed the Petition under Section 9 of the Act. The Appeal qua Order dated 23.1,L 20L0 is dismissed. The dismissal of this
Appea1 we hasten to clarify will obviously not preclude the
Appellant from challenging the legality of the decision of termination of the Contract.
All pending Applications also stand disposed of.
L, J.
January 27,20L1 nt
I tu
V-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. n
,Ytie-\
SIDDTIARTH MRIDU
7\
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011
A-3s o/o
27.0t.20LL
Present: Mr V.P.Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr Pradeep
R.Tiwari, Mr Sukumar and Mr Prafulla R.Tiwary, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr Saurav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent.
+ FAO(OS) 45-46/2O1L & CM Nos.L81-2-L8L5/2O1-1-
*
This is an Appeal against the Order dated
2O.t2.2OtO, by which the Review filed by the.Appellant before us was allowed. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant states that he does not press the Appeal, as regards Order dated
20.t2.201.0. The Appeal qua Order dated 20.L2.20t0 is dismissed, as not pressed.
The prayer before the Learned Single Judge in the
Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads thus:-
' '(a) Pass an ex-parLe order of Injunction staying the operation of the impugned letter dated t7.5.20t0 and further restrain the respondents or their agents from giving any effect to the impugned letter dated
L7.5.20L0 and other show cause notices till the final adjudication of the disputes in the arbitration proceedings. i?n
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Page 1. of 4
2011:DHC:11246-DB t
(b) Direct the respondent IRCTC to maintain status quo with respect to the works/services in Group
No.9 trains which are being currently operated by the petitioner and further restrain the respondent from causing any undue hindrance/interference in the perfonnance of the services till the dispute is finally aQjudicated in the arbitration proceedings;
(c) Direct the respondent IRCTC to either return or give a{ustments with interest @ 24% of the amount i.e. Rs 54,0L,LL51- and Rs 17,50,000/- of the petitioner which are lyrng unaccounted with
' respondent.
(d) Direct the respondent IRCTC to make immediate payrnents against the running bill of bed roll services of Rs 31_,87,9561- for the last 4 months and also to release such payments on time so that the petitioner could meet the day to day expenses of catering work;
(e) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble CourL may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
It is beyond the pale of controversy that the contract has now been terminated by the Respondent. on 25.5.20i-0 the following Order was passed:-
"..Mr Manish K.Bishnoi, learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that petitioner would deposit in the Registry of this Court a sum of Rs 36 lacs demanded by the respondent as licence fee within a period of six weeks from today. He however, prays that the running bills with regard to this contract of
Group 9 trains be processed and paid immediately. o.M.P.300120L0
Accordingly, respondent is directed to process and pay in accordance with the contract in question
1t
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Pagre 2 of 4 running bills with regard to Group 9 trains within a period of six weeks from today. Registry is directed to deposit the sum. of Rs 36 lacs in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a period of six months. Mr Agrawal further prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a reply affidavit.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 29ftJuy, 20L0.
_sd_
May 25, 201,0"
This Order was not challenged. Instead, I.A.
No.L56BB/20L0 was filed calling upon the Respondents to make payment of the said sum of { 36,24,377/- on the Appellant,s understanding of the order dated 25.5.20L0. By means of the impugned order the Learned single Judge has clarified that the intent of the Order dated 25.5.2010 was that the
Appellant/Petitioner must pay the aforementioned sum of
Respondents would have to draw up accounts and pay the
Petitioner/Appellant as per those accounts. In the impugned order, 'the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition observing that the initial sum of ( 36,24,377/- had not been paid.
We are in entire agreement with the impugned
Order. Furthermore, since the main prayer in the Section 9
Petition has been rendered infructuous, in that the contract has
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011 Pagre 3 of 4
7"r
\ been terminated, the substratum of the Petition itself has vanished. Accord.ingly, the learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed the Petition under Section 9 of the Act. The Appeal qua Order dated 23.1,L 20L0 is dismissed. The dismissal of this
Appea1 we hasten to clarify will obviously not preclude the
Appellant from challenging the legality of the decision of termination of the Contract.
All pending Applications also stand disposed of.
L, J.
January 27,20L1 nt
I tu
V-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. n
,Ytie-\
SIDDTIARTH MRIDU
7\
FAO(OS) 45-46/2011
JUDGMENT