LexM/S. GAIL (I) LTD. versus BAL KISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 1025 '"'( M/S. GAIL (I) LTD. A v. BAL KISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeai No. 4918 of 2008) AUGUST 7, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A(bitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 17 - Interim orders -Agreement between appellant and respondent for sup- c ply of gas - Supply discontinued - Dispute over terms of re- connection - Suit filed by respondent notwithstanding pend- ing arbitral proceedings - Orders passed by Civil Court and High Court - Held: Under s. 17, interim orders can be passed by arbitrator - Respondent directed to make application for D interim· arrangement before the arbitrator. An agreement was entered into between the appel- lant and the respondent for supply of gas. The gas meter . was found tampered and consequently, the gas supply was discontinued. The appellant, in accordance with the E terms for re-connection asked the respondent to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount and security for balance. The respondent filed a civil suit praying for direction to the appellant to execute deed for renewal of gas supply without demanding any payment or security. The interim F orders passed by the trial court and the High Court to re- sume supply of ·gas on the terms suggested gave rise to the instant appeal. It was contended for the appellant that inasmuch as the matter was pending before the Arbitrator, the Civil Court G ought not to have passed any order in the civil suit and the High Court was not justified in practically affirming the or- ~.+ der of the Civil Court except variation of certain conditions. Disposing of the appeal, the Court 1025 H 1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A HELD: In the instant case, proceedings are pending before the arbitrator. Under s.17 of the Arbitration and Con- ciliation Act, 1996, interim orders can be passed by the Arbitrator. In the circumstances of the case, the following directions are being given: (1) Within a period of ten days, B the respondent shall make an appropriate application for interim arrangement before the Arbitrator; (2) Within a period of three days from the date of receipt of copy of the application, the appellant shall file the response/ob- jection, if any and (3) Within a period of ten days thereaf- C ter the Arbitrator is requested to dispose of the applica- tion in accordance with law. It is open to the respondent to place the proposal which was filed in the Court. The Arbitrator shall consider the matter in proper perspective. [Paras 7, 8] [1030 E,F 1030 F,G,H, 1031 A,8] D CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4918 E F of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.9.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1339- D of 2007 G. Vahanvati, S.G. Udit Kumar, Chanchal Biswal and Rajiv Tyagi for the Appellant. T.R. Andhyarujina, Abhishek Mohan Sinha, Jaya Bharuka, Hansa Bharuka and Devashish Bharuka for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division G Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of appeal (FAFO No. 1339-D of 2007) which was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by learned Judge of Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, in Suit No. 285 of 2007. By the said order the application for interim H mandatory injunction was disposed of with certain directions. I M/S. GAIL (I) LTD. v. BAL KISHAN AGARWAL 1027 GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT.] 3. Background facts as projected by the appellant giving .. A rise to the appeal in a nutshell are as follows: On 17 .9.1996 an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for supply of gas. The agree- ment was valid upto 31.3.2002 and was further extended from , 8 time to time upto 31.3.2006. On 3.12.2004 officials of the ap- pellant inspected the factory premises of the respondent and found that gas supply has been tampered with. Similar incidents were noticed on 15.1.2005 and 17.3.2005. Therefore on · ' 28.5.2005 gas supply was discontinued. Respondent filed writ ··c petition No. 44679 of 2005 before the Allahabad High Court. By order dated 18.7.2005 the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that alternative remedy of arbitration was ·· available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in shor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.