Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Regenta Hotels Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hotel Grand Centre Point – Respondent
यह मामला एक अविभाजित विवाद से संबंधित है जिसमें एक होटल प्रबंधन कंपनी ने एक होटल के संचालन में हस्तक्षेप को लेकर अदालत का सहारा लिया। अदालत ने निर्धारित किया कि यदि किसी भी पक्ष ने मध्यस्थता के लिए आवेदन करने के बाद तीन महीने के भीतर प्रक्रिया शुरू नहीं की, तो अस्थायी आदेश अपने आप समाप्त हो जाएगा। इस मामले में, अपीलकर्ता ने समय सीमा से पहले ही arbitration प्रक्रिया शुरू कर दी थी, इसलिए अदालत ने इस प्रक्रिया को समय सीमा के भीतर माना। उच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी पाया कि arbitration प्रक्रिया की शुरुआत उस तारीख से मानी जानी चाहिए जब नोटिस प्राप्त किया गया हो, न कि जब संबंधित आवेदन या प्रक्रिया फाइल की गई हो। इस आधार पर, अदालत ने फैसला दिया कि अपीलकर्ता ने समय सीमा का उल्लंघन नहीं किया है और इसलिए अस्थायी आदेश और संबंधित रोक को फिर से बहाल किया जाना चाहिए। अंत में, अदालत ने उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय रद्द कर दिया और अपीलकर्ता के पक्ष में फैसला सुनाया, साथ ही साथ संबंधित प्रक्रिया को शीघ्र पूरा करने का निर्देश दिया।
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant Civil Appeal assails the Judgment dated 14.11.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (“High Court”), whereby it dismissed the Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7168 of 2024 (AA) filed by the Appellant herein against the Order dated 01.10.2024 of the IXth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (“Trial Court”) in I.A. Nos. 5 to 7 in AA No. 4 of 2024 which has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC 1908”) and Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) read with Rule 9 of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”). The Trial Court vide Order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the application seeking temporary injunction restraining Respondent No.2.
3. The Appellant herein is Regenta Hotels Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in carrying business, inter alia, of operating hotels and providing hospitality services in India and abroad. The Respondent No. 1 is M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point, a partnership firm registered under the
Automatic vacation of ad-interim injunction – Where an interim order has been granted on application made under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but no arbitral proceedings are ini....
The court ruled that failure to initiate arbitration proceedings within 90 days of an interim order vacates such order, impacting the validity of injunction applications.
The requirement for fresh notice to initiate arbitration is essential after an award has been annulled, as it marks the commencement of valid proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1....
A notice under Section 21 is not required for a Section 11 application, and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction over counterclaims in a commercial dispute.
The main legal point established is that the filing of a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is not subject to a period of limitation and is covered by the residual provision Article 137 of ....
Under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, failure to commence arbitral proceedings within 90 days of an interim order may terminate proceedings unless extensions are granted due to ongoing enforcement ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
