SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Del) 480

High Court Of Delhi
ASHOK CHAWLA - Appellant
Versus
RAKESH GUPTA - Respondent
Decided On : 05/24/1996

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 — Interim measures — Reference of dispute — Seeking interim relief without seeking substantial relief such as appointment of arbitrator — No relief can be given to petitioner — Absence of power — Effect of — Dismissed.

       Held:

       In my opinion in the absence of any prayer for substantive relief the prayer for issuing any directions by way of interim measure cannot be entertained.

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance ). The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition, briefly stated are, that the petitioner who is a retired Colonel from the Army is in the aviation business and that in July, 1994 he was approached by the respondent with certain business proposals. It is alleged that though the business proposals did not materialise but the petitioner and the respondent developed a relationship and the petitioner starting trusting the respondent implicitly. The respondent, it is averred, represented to the petitioner that he was running a big airlines company by name `united India Airways and requested the petitioner to be a part of the company and guide and control the business as he needed experienced and financially sound persons for expanding the business. It is averred that the petitioner and the respondent signed a `promoters Agreement which was executed on 7th September, 1994.

( 1a ) IT is further alleged that pursuant to the said agreement the petitioner applied for 2,00,100 shares of the above said company, the payment of which was duly acknowledged by the company vide receipts dated 14. 11. 1994, 31. 3. 95, 3. 4. 95 and 15. 3. 95. The petitioner was appointed Director of the company on 5. 12. 1994 and thereafter the Chairman. It is alleged that the shares applied for the payment of which was duly acknowledged by the company, were not issued to the petitioner despite repeated requests. It is further alleged that though the petitioner never submitted his resignation but he came to know from the annual return of the said company that he caused to be the Director of the above company on 25. 5. 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the above said company is liable to issue 2,00,100 shares to the petitioner, the subscription amount in respect of which has been fully received by the Company.

( 1b ) IT is also averred that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking the following reliefs :-

(A) pass a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is a shareholder of 2,00,100 shares of the Company;

(B) Pass a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to hold 50% of the shares of defendant No. 1 Company;

(C) Restrain defendants No. 1 and 2, their servants, representatives, heirs and assigns from allotting shares worth Rs. 21 lacs which were subscribed to by the plaintiff to any other person;

(D) Restrain defendants Nos. 1 and 2, their servants, representatives, heirs and assigns from increasing the shares capital of defendant No. 1 Company;

(E) Pass interim orders in terms of prayers (c) and (d) above.

(F) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 1c ) VIDE order dated 9th May, 1996, on an application (IA No. 4277/96) filed alongwith the above mentioned suit under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code brother N. G. Nandi, J. has restrained the above said company (defendant No. 1 in the suit), from allotting shares worth Rs. 21 lacs which were subscribed to by the petitioner to any other person. It is alleged that no order was passed against the respondent due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the Promoters Agreement.

( 1d ) THE petitioner in the present petition has made the following prayer :-

(I) that the respondent, his servants, heirs, representatives and assigns be restrained from increasing the share capital of the company, United India Airways Ltd,;

(II) that the respondent, his servants, heirs, representatives and assigns be restrained from allotting shares worth Rs. 21 lacs which were subscribed to by the petitioner to any other person; and

(III) that any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed.

( 2 ) THE respo












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top