Full Text
Translation output
%08.04.2010
Present: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Advocate with Mr Rahul& Ms Saahila Lamba for the appellant.
Mr Jayant Nath,Sr Advocate with Mr B CPandey & Mr S Tripathi for the respondent.
+ Arb.A.No.8/2010
*
Fortuitously, there has been an agreement to the mode and manner in which the present appeal can be disposed of. Briefly,this appeal has been preferred against an order dated 12.01.2010 passed by Mr Justice R C Chopra(Retd.).By virtue ofthe said or^erthe respondent has been restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of its resort situate at NH-8 Delhi Gurgaon Road, Delhi without permission ofthe arbitral tribunal.
To be noted that eventhough the memo ofparties refer to four appellants,there is,in effect only one appellant.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted before me that the entire claim ofthe respondent would not exceed a sum ofRs 1 crore inclusive ofinterest. This is refuted by learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. He submits that the dispute
^ between the parties involves adjudication ofnine(9)contracts.Since the arbitration clause is contained in only two(2)contracts, the arbitration proceedings are confined to the said two(2)contracts. It is also contended thatthe claim in these proceedings alone is in the
Arb.A.No.8/2010
2010:DHC:11427 region ofRs 1.20 crores(inclusive ofinterest).
Be that as it may,both counsels have agreed that the appeal can be disposed ofin the following terms
The appellant(M/s Tricolor Hotels Ltd.)shall furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of
Rs 1 crore in favour ofthe respondent(M/s Chawla Techno Construct Ltd.). The bank guarantee shall be ofa scheduled bank. The said bank guarantee shall be kept alive during the pendency ofthe arbitration proceedings. It is made clear that after the pronouncement ofthe award and notice thereofto the parties,the bank guarantee shall,ifnecessary,be kept alive for a period oftwo weeks thereafter.
It is also agreed by the parties that in case the appellant were to succeed in the proceedings,the learned Arbitrator shall consider awarding cost, ifany,incurred by the appellant for keeping the bank guarantee alive. Mr Nath learned Senior counsel, on instructions, says that he is agreeable to such a modification ofthe impugned order. With these observations,the appeal is disposed of. The operative part ofthe impugned order is modified to that extent.
The bank guarantee shall be furnished within a period oftwo weeksfrom today. Till that date the impugned order shall operate.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
APRIL 08,2010 mb
Arb.A.No.8/2010 Page 2of 2
2010:DHC:11427
Present: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Advocate with Mr Rahul& Ms Saahila Lamba for the appellant.
Mr Jayant Nath,Sr Advocate with Mr B CPandey & Mr S Tripathi for the respondent.
+ Arb.A.No.8/2010
*
Fortuitously, there has been an agreement to the mode and manner in which the present appeal can be disposed of. Briefly,this appeal has been preferred against an order dated 12.01.2010 passed by Mr Justice R C Chopra(Retd.).By virtue ofthe said or^erthe respondent has been restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of its resort situate at NH-8 Delhi Gurgaon Road, Delhi without permission ofthe arbitral tribunal.
To be noted that eventhough the memo ofparties refer to four appellants,there is,in effect only one appellant.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted before me that the entire claim ofthe respondent would not exceed a sum ofRs 1 crore inclusive ofinterest. This is refuted by learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. He submits that the dispute
^ between the parties involves adjudication ofnine(9)contracts.Since the arbitration clause is contained in only two(2)contracts, the arbitration proceedings are confined to the said two(2)contracts. It is also contended thatthe claim in these proceedings alone is in the
Arb.A.No.8/2010
2010:DHC:11427 region ofRs 1.20 crores(inclusive ofinterest).
Be that as it may,both counsels have agreed that the appeal can be disposed ofin the following terms
The appellant(M/s Tricolor Hotels Ltd.)shall furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of
Rs 1 crore in favour ofthe respondent(M/s Chawla Techno Construct Ltd.). The bank guarantee shall be ofa scheduled bank. The said bank guarantee shall be kept alive during the pendency ofthe arbitration proceedings. It is made clear that after the pronouncement ofthe award and notice thereofto the parties,the bank guarantee shall,ifnecessary,be kept alive for a period oftwo weeks thereafter.
It is also agreed by the parties that in case the appellant were to succeed in the proceedings,the learned Arbitrator shall consider awarding cost, ifany,incurred by the appellant for keeping the bank guarantee alive. Mr Nath learned Senior counsel, on instructions, says that he is agreeable to such a modification ofthe impugned order. With these observations,the appeal is disposed of. The operative part ofthe impugned order is modified to that extent.
The bank guarantee shall be furnished within a period oftwo weeksfrom today. Till that date the impugned order shall operate.
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
APRIL 08,2010 mb
Arb.A.No.8/2010 Page 2of 2
2010:DHC:11427
JUDGMENT