DALPAT SINGH NARUKA & ANR. versus KARUNA BANSAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 21-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 139
139
DALPAT SINGH NARUKA & ANR.
v.
KARUNA BANSAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3651-3653 of 2022)
April 21, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9 and 37 – Scope
of appeal – Limited jurisdiction vested u/s.37 – Interim orders passed
by High Court in appeals preferred by respondents u/s.37, being
aggrieved by order passed by the Commercial Court, dismissing
application for interim relief filed by the respondents u/s.9 – Held:
By passing the impugned orders, the High Court acted in excess of
the limited jurisdiction vested in it u/s.37 – The scope of the appeal
preferred by the respondents u/s.37 ought to be confined to
examining the merits of the order passed by the Commercial Court
that refused to grant any interim measures in favour of respondents
on the application moved by them u/s.9 – However, respondents
have managed to take appeal proceedings on an entirely different
trajectory – As a result, the Appellate Court conducted a roving
and fishing inquiry relating to the manner in which investigation
was being conducted in respect of FIR registered at the instance of
the respondents, to the point that not only was a status report and
the case diary called for, the Investigating Officer was also
summoned and subsequently, the investigation was been transferred
to the Special Operation Group – None of the three impugned orders
could have been passed by the Appellate Court in proceedings
arising from an order passed u/s.9 – If the respondents have any
grievance regarding the unfair or partial manner of the investigation
conducted in respect of the FIR registered on their complaint, it is
for them to seek appropriate legal recourse before the competent
court on the criminal side – However, the proceedings initiated by
the respondents u/s.37 can certainly not be permitted to be misused
and virtually highjacked towards this end – Impugned orders of
High Court are accordingly quashed and set aside – High Court to
decide appeal preferred by the respondents strictly in accordance
with law and well within the parameters contemplated u/s.37.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3651-
3653 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2022, 11.03.2022 and
29.03.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench
in CMA No.431 of 2021.
Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Megha Karnwal,
Ajat Shatru, Nidhi Ram Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Vanya
Gupta, Aditya Bohra, Kaustubh Seth, Ayush Kaushik, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
1.1 The present appeals by way of special leave are directed
against three interim orders dated 24th February, 2022, 11th March, 2022
and 29th March, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in appeals preferred by the respondents under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, being aggrieved
by an order dated 11th February 2021 passed by the Commercial Court
No.1, Jaipur-II dismissing an application for interim relief filed by the
respondents under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.
2. On 26th February, 2021, while issuing notice in the appeal
preferred by the respondents and summoning the records of the
Commercial Court, the appellants herein were restrained by the High
Court from alienating the property described as “Hotel Grand Uniara”,
subject matter of dispute between the parties. Vide order dated 13th
August, 2021, the High Court directed the appellants to produce the
original stamp papers on which a Supplementary Partnership Deed had
allegedly been executed by them in view of the plea taken by the
respondents that the said Deed had been antedated to deprive them of
their rights over the subject property. One day before 13th August, 2021,
on the complaint of the respondent No.3 relating to the aforementioned
Supplementary Partnership Deed, FIR No.293/2021 was registered
against the appellants and some others at PS Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
1 in short ‘1996 Act’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
3. It is not in dispute that the investigation in respect of FIR 293/
2021 was subsequently transferred to the CID-CB and the Additional
Director General of Police, Crime Branch has constituted a Special
Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate FIR No.211/2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.