Valvue Armaturen V. U. Beratung Gmbh & Co. KG Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10640 Of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 12331/91 in Suit No. 3737 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 12331/91 in Suit No. 3737 of 1991)
Petitioner: Valvue Armaturen V. U. Beratung Gmbh & Co. KG
Respondent: National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10640 Of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 12331/91 in Suit No. 3737 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.98 of the Delhi High Court in I.A. No. 12331/91 in Suit No. 3737 of 1991)
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 27, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Seema Sapra and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Interference under – Interlocutory interdictions – Issue relating to vacation or continuance of a stay order granted on 29.11.91 – Not disposed for about 7 years – Ordered that Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 136, but, High Court requested to dispose the issue before 31.12.98. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Dresser Rand, S.A. v. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. & Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 181) (Para 1) Referred in JT 1998 (5) SC 245
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment of this court in Dresser Rand, S.A. v. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. & Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 181) and in particular, to paragraph 2, which reads thus :
“2. In a matter of this nature where questions of amenability of a dispute to international arbitration arise it is not proper to let loose and keep at large orders of injunction of this kind for unduly long periods. It is inconsistent with the principles governing international arbitration. It is of utmost importance for the domestic courts to be circumspect in grant-ing such interlocutory interdictions. At any rate, the court must ensure that the matters are dealt with and disposed of with utmost despatch.”
2. After hearing Mr. Jaitley and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the issue relating to the vacation or continu-ance of the stay order, which had been obtained by the respondent in Suit No. 3737/91, as early as in 29.11.1991 and is still in operation requires to be settled expeditiously. The issue has not been disposed of although almost seven years have elapsed. In the nature of the dispute pending before the court, issues relating to interlocutory interdictions need to be disposed of with utmost despatch.
3. While not being inclined to interfere with an order adjourn-ing the decision of issue in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we, however, consider it appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the issue concerning the vacation or otherwise of the injunction expe-ditiously and as far as possible before 31.12.1998.
4. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.
1. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment of this court in Dresser Rand, S.A. v. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. & Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 181) and in particular, to paragraph 2, which reads thus :
“2. In a matter of this nature where questions of amenability of a dispute to international arbitration arise it is not proper to let loose and keep at large orders of injunction of this kind for unduly long periods. It is inconsistent with the principles governing international arbitration. It is of utmost importance for the domestic courts to be circumspect in grant-ing such interlocutory interdictions. At any rate, the court must ensure that the matters are dealt with and disposed of with utmost despatch.”
2. After hearing Mr. Jaitley and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the issue relating to the vacation or continu-ance of the stay order, which had been obtained by the respondent in Suit No. 3737/91, as early as in 29.11.1991 and is still in operation requires to be settled expeditiously. The issue has not been disposed of although almost seven years have elapsed. In the nature of the dispute pending before the court, issues relating to interlocutory interdictions need to be disposed of with utmost despatch.
3. While not being inclined to interfere with an order adjourn-ing the decision of issue in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we, however, consider it appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the issue concerning the vacation or otherwise of the injunction expe-ditiously and as far as possible before 31.12.1998.
4. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.
