JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 9(1)(ii) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant a stay of further proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Second, Third and Fourth Respondents with regard to the dispute between M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited and M/s. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, as an interim measure of protection until leave is granted by the Hon'ble NCLT, Hyderabad under S.279 of the Companies Act, 2013 to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.)

This application has been filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for staying the further proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents with regard to the dispute between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent until to obtain leave from NCLT, Hyderabad to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.

2. The brief facts leading to file this application is as follows:

2.a. The applicant and the 1st Respondent entered into contract dated 05.09.2011 for the Design and Construction of Elevated Station at Meenambakkam, Architectual Builders Works and Finishes (ABWF) and Building Services Work (BS) for Chennai Airport Station, Viaducts, Ramps and Cut-cover Tunner between Officers Training Academy Station and Chennai Air Port Station on corridor 1 and was termed as the ECV-07 package of the project (Subject Project).

2.(b) As the dispute arose between them, the matter has been referred to the Arbitrator. The 1st Respondent being the claimant claimed an aggregate sum of Rs.1,98,58,82,734/-. The Applicant being the respondent in the Arbitral Proceedings, has also made a counter claim for a sum of Rs.107 Crores. It is the further case of the Applicant that after evidence was over, the moratorium imposed on the 1st Respondent by National Company Law Board, Hyderabad vide order dated 07.08.2017 and subsequent to the moratorium period, by an order dated 27.08.2018 liquidation was ordered and consequently Liquidator was appointed. It is the contention of the Applicant that to continue the proceedings, leave of the NCLT have to be obtained under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013. The 1st Respondent being the Liquidator took a stand that no leave is required to be sought under Section 279 of the Companies Act for continuance of the pending arbitral proceedings. A request was made before the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to the leave on the ground that failure to obtain leave from the NCLT. Any award passed in favour of the Applicant or the 1st Respondent would be held null and void. But the Arbitral Tribunal has held that leave is not required since the Companies Act is of the year 2013. Therefore, this application has been filed under section 9 (2)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking interim injunction to restrain the arbitral proceedings until the leave from the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal is obtained. The limited relief was sought till the leave is obtained.

3. It is the further case of the applicant that a writ petition also filed by the applicant before this Court and this court has held that writ is not maintainable. Since the writ petition is dismissed holding that application under Section 9 has to be filed. Hence this application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is very well maintainable.

4. The Respondent Liquidator took a stand in his counter that the continuation of pending legal proceedings is not barred during liquidation as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Section 33(5) of the IBC expressly include the obligation of the Liquidator to take permission for initiating new proceedings only, there is no room for interpreting the provision in any manner. It is the contention that the Companies Act would not have any applicability in the present case as the liquidat