ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 For Opp.Parties – M/s.R.N.Sahoo, S.Sahoo, S.N.Sahoo, A.R.Dash, S.K.Nanda-1, K.S.Sahu & B.Mohapatra. *W.P.(C) NO.1486 OF 2010. In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. S. PANDA, J. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in ARBP Case No.56 of 2010 returning the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to present the same in a proper court at Mumbai. M/S.D.T.M.CONSTRUCTION LTD.-V- CAPT.P.K..SRIVASTAVA [S.PANDA,J.] 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is a construction Company which deals in projects relating to construction and dredging. Opposite party no.1 is a proprietor concern which deals in hiring of dredger and its accessories by procuring margin. Opposite party no.2 is a Company which used to let out dredgers. The Irrigation Department of the Government of Orissa issued a work-order in favour of the petitioner for dredging and distillation in the rivers connected with Chilika Lagoon in the district of Puri to protect the same. Hence, the petitioner-D.T.M. Construction (India) Ltd. approached opposite party no.1 for hiring of dredger and opposite party no.1 accepted the said proposal of the petitioner. He intimated that though the dredger belongs to opposite party no.2 from whom he (opposite party no.1) obtained the said dredger on hire basis, he can sub-let the same. The petitioner brought the dredger from Mumabi to river Makara. However, several defects were found in the dredger which were rectified by opposite party nos.1 and 2. But the situation did not improve. The petitioner entered into an agreement with opposite party no.1 on 1.9.2008 regarding hiring of the dredger on good faith and with the belief that opposite party no.1 had correctly revealed the condition of the dredger. Opposite party no.2 gave a letter autorising opposite party no.1 to sub-let the dredger. As per the said agreement, the petitioner paid Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) to opposite party no.1 and also paid another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) in the month of July 2009. Regarding hiring charges, opposite party no.1 demanded more amount from the month of April, 2009 to June, 2009. To solve the dispute, a joint meeting was held with opposite party nos.1 and 2 and opposite party no.1 also recommended to reduce the hiring charges to opposite party no.2, but no fruitful purpose was served. Despite the fact that the dredger did not function at all for some months, opposite party no.2 informed opposite party no.1 by e-mail that the petitioner should pay minimum charges for the period from 14 th February to 15 th April, 2009. However, the petitioner paid sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) out of the total dues of Rs.45,000/- irrespective of the fact that the dredger due to defects, did not work and also the petitioner spent
119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of the said dredger. The petitioner had to arrange two more dredgers to complete the job in time as the dredger obtained from opposite party no.1 did not work. Since dispute arose between the parties and the opposite parties tried to take away the dredger without settling the dues, finding no other way, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Puri which was registered as ARBP Case No.56 of 2010 claiming interim relief to restrain the opposite parties from taking away the dredger on the ground that if the dredger will be taken away, the petitioner will sustain further loss and injury and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. The learned District Judge INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] issued notice to the opposite parties and also passed an interim order protecting the petitioner. After appearance of the opposite parties, the learned District Judge heard the matter on the question of maintainability of the application and by the impugned order, he held that the court has no jurisdiction to decide the said application and directed to take back the petition to present before a proper court at Mumbai and also vacated the interim order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge should not have returned the application of the petitioner taking into consideration Clause 19.3 of the agreement with regard to the venue of the arbitration. He further submitted that since the dredger in question was available and its utilization was within the jurisdiction of the court, the petitioner rightly moved the application under Section 9 of the Act for interim protection as provided. The court had issued notice to the opposite parties. Therefore, instead of returning the said application filed under Section 9 of the Act by the petitioner, the learned District Judge should have decided the application on merit as Section 9 of the Act provides that the application is to be presented before the court for interim relief. 4. In the present case, the opposite parties appeared by filing a Caveat Petition. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the writ application is not maintainable as the impugned order is subject to appeal under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is appealable and this Court need not interfere with the same in a writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 37 of the Act provides that if the court has allowed or refused the application, the appeal will be maintainable but not in other circumstances. In the present case, since the learned District Judge returned the application to present it before a proper court, the petitioner has challenged the said order by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the order was not revisable, as provided under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52:
ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 59 and 60: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 63 and 64: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 77 and 78: 91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154: 167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?