Mulk Raj Chhabra And Ors. Vs. New Kenil Worth Hotels Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14887/1999
(From the judgement and order dated 26.08.1999 in AP 299/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)
(From the judgement and order dated 26.08.1999 in AP 299/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)
Petitioner: Mulk Raj Chhabra And Ors.
Respondent: New Kenil Worth Hotels Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14887/1999
(From the judgement and order dated 26.08.1999 in AP 299/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)
(From the judgement and order dated 26.08.1999 in AP 299/99 of the High Court of Calcutta)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 03, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. M.L. Verma, Sr. Adv., Mr. B.S. Chahar, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vinay Garg, Adv. For Petitioner (s)
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. A.K. Jhunjhunwala, Adv., Mr.S.Banerjee, Adv, Ms. Purnima Singh, Adv., Mr.Suman Jyoti Khaitan, For Respondent (s)
Head Note:
ARBITRATION LAW
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37 – Arbitration – Appeal – Order passed being appealable to Division Bench of High Court. Held no interference under Article 136 of Constitu-tion of India called for.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37 – Arbitration – Appeal – Order passed being appealable to Division Bench of High Court. Held no interference under Article 136 of Constitu-tion of India called for.
Constitution
Article 136 – Arbitration – Appeal – Order passsed being appealable to Division Bench of High Court . Held no interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India called for.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties, we do not deem it fit to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitu-tion of India, with the impugned order which admittedly is ap-pealable before a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently con-tended that the allegations made in the counter affidavit are not correct and he may be given time to file rejoinder. We would have granted time for filing a rejoinder, but for the fact that we are disposing of this petition without going into the merits.
3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent does not dispute about the maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order. We, therefore, dispose of this S.L.P. without expressing any opinion on merits. Ad interim order dated 15.10.1999 passed by us staying further proceedings in Suit No. AP 299/1999 will continue for six weeks from today. It is made clear that granting of further interim relief will depend upon the order which the Division Bench in appeal may think fit and proper to grant after hearing the parties. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Court Master.
1. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties, we do not deem it fit to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitu-tion of India, with the impugned order which admittedly is ap-pealable before a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently con-tended that the allegations made in the counter affidavit are not correct and he may be given time to file rejoinder. We would have granted time for filing a rejoinder, but for the fact that we are disposing of this petition without going into the merits.
3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent does not dispute about the maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order. We, therefore, dispose of this S.L.P. without expressing any opinion on merits. Ad interim order dated 15.10.1999 passed by us staying further proceedings in Suit No. AP 299/1999 will continue for six weeks from today. It is made clear that granting of further interim relief will depend upon the order which the Division Bench in appeal may think fit and proper to grant after hearing the parties. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Court Master.
