V.CHITAMBARESH, R.NARAYANA PISHARADI
M. Ashraf S/o Ahammed – Appellant
Versus
Kasim V. K. S/o Kunhabdulla Haji – Respondent
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
Is an application under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking an interim measure of protection, maintainable before the Court, after passing of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal but before it is enforced, in view of the provision contained in Section 9(3) of the Act? This question essentially falls for consideration in this appeal.
2. The facts of the case are not very much relevant here. Suffice it to state that, on reference of the dispute between the appellant and the respondent over dissolution of a partnership firm, an award was passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the appellant. Before initiating steps for enforcement of the award, the appellant filed an application under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act before the District Court, seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering five items of properties. The appellant alleged that the respondent was taking expeditious steps for alienation of the properties with a view to evade payment of money awarded to the appellant.
3. When the application came up for consideration before it, the Di
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
Arvind Constructions Company v. Kalinga Mining Corporation
Board of Trustees of Port of Cochin v. Jaisu Shipping Company
Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja.
Hari Kumar v. M/s Shriram Finance Company
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.