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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1684

High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
SBQ Steels Ltd.
Versus
Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.
O.A. No. 26 of 2013
Decided on : 19-04-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Anilkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sudarsanam, Advocate.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Interim Injunction - Section 9 (ii) (d)

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, M/s.SBQ Steels Limited, sought interim injunction against the respondents from removing any material, machineries, or causing damage to the property of the applicant in the leased premises. The applicant had established a Steel Plant in Andhra Pradesh and entered into a contract with the respondent for the production and supply of gases and liquid argon. Disputes arose between the parties, leading to termination of the contract and lease agreement. The applicant filed an application seeking appointment of a Commissioner to prepare an inventory of the machineries and assets in the leased premises.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application as the immovable property in dispute was situated outside its jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the applicant did not have a prima facie case to seek injunction, as the equipment and machineries in the leased premises belonged to the respondent. The Court dismissed the application with costs.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Prima facie case for injunction, Misuse of the process of Court

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application due to the immovable property being situated outside its jurisdiction. The Court also found that the applicant did not have a prima facie case to seek injunction, as the equipment and machineries in the leased premises belonged to the respondent. The Court noted that the application appeared to be a misuse of the process of Court.

Final Decision: The application was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

Judgment :-

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 9 (ii) (d) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed by M/s.SBQ Steels Limited, seeking interim injunction, restraining the respondents their men, servants, agents, person or persons acting through or under them or for and on their behalf from in any manner whatsoever removing any of the material, machineries or causing any damage to the property of the applicant lying in the leased premises described in the schedule hereunder.

2. The affidavit filed in support of prayer is that the applicant had established a Steel Plant in Andhra Pradesh on capital cost of Rs.1255 Crores. The registered office of the applicant is at Chennai. The respondent had approached the applicant and expressed that they have requisite expertise in production and supply of Oxygen and Nitrogen gases and liquid argon, which are required for the Steel Melt Shop of the applicant. Based on the representations, assurances, guarantees and warranties made by the respondent, that the applicant entered into a contract dated 07.08.2008 at the registered office of the applicant at Chennai, which was subsequently amended by agreement dated 05.03.2010, entered into at Chennai.

3. For the reason best known to the applicant, they have not placed on record copy of the contract dated 07.08.2008 or agreement dated 05.03.2010, which was said to have been entered at Chennai.

4. It is submitted, that the contract was styled as Build, Own and Operate basis, wherein the respondent was to incur the entire cost for the project of setting up the gas plant. The respondent was to set up an Air Separation Unit to produce and supply Oxygen and Nitrogen gases and liquid argon, required by the applicant, whereas applicant under the contract was to provide to the respondent various other facilities like land, water, electricity etc., for the above project.

5. The applicant entered into a Land Lease Agreement dated 16.12.2008, leasing out land measuring 6400 sq.ft., situated at Ankalapataru Village, Chillakuru Mandal, Gudur, Andhra Pradesh within the premises of the Steel Plant of applicant. The lease was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Gudur.

6. It is submitted, that the payment of lease money was to be paid at Chennai. The lease money payable was fixed at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) per annum and the lease was for a period of 19 years with provision for renewal for another 5 years on extension of the contract dated 07.08.2008.

7. According to the lease deed, the respondent was not to use the lease land for any other purpose, nor it could assign, transfer, mortgage, sub-let or part with possession without prior written consent.

8. The lease agreement also had arbitration clause, which reads as under:

"8. Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties and/or relating to the construction, interpretation, application, meaning, scope, operation or effect of the Contract to the breach thereof, then the parties shall endeavour to resolve such dispute or difference in good faith in the first instance within thirty (30) days of notice of such dispute or difference. If the dispute or difference is not resolved by mutual discussion, either party may, upon giving notice to the other, refer the dispute or difference for arbitration by a sole arbitrator, if the parties agree upon the same, failing which the dispute or difference shall be referred to three arbitrators, each party to appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as presiding arbitrator. The language of the arbitration proceeding shall be English. Venue of Arbitration shall be Delhi. The Arbitration shall be governed by Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments or modifications thereto."

9. It is pleaded, that though contract dated 07.08.2008 styled as a Build, Own and Operate basis, where the respondent was


























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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