2023 Supreme(Mad) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. New Direction Industries & Logistics Company, represented by Partner Rajesh S.Pawani & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – Respondent
O.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 210 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
For the Petitioners:P. Kavin Prabhu, Advocate. For the Respondent:K. Palaniappan, Advocate.
The Court emphasized the importance of arbitration in resolving the disputes between the parties and extended the interim orders to facilitate the arbitration process.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Interim Injunction - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought interim injunction to restrain the respondent-Corporation from taking possession or invoking the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Eviction Act for resuming the plots allotted to them till the completion of the arbitral proceedings. The respondent claimed non-fulfillment of terms and conditions and levied charges against the applicants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court extended the interim orders in favor of the applicants for three weeks to enable them to approach the arbitral tribunal seeking the same interim relief. The Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties on merits and in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fulfillment of terms and conditions of the plot allotments, charges levied by the respondent, and the initiation of arbitration proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the consent of both parties for arbitration and the need to extend the interim orders to facilitate the arbitration process.
Final Decision: The applications were disposed of with the extension of interim orders and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Original Applications filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 9(ii) (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent Corporation/SIPCOT or its assignees or its agents claiming under it, from taking possession or invoking the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Eviction Act for resuming the plot assigned to the Applicant or taking any further coercive action till the completion of the Arbitration Proceedings and pass such and other appropriate order as this Hon-ble Court deems fit in the circumstances.)
Common Order:
These applications have been filed by the respective applicants under Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 seeking for interim injunction to restrain the respondent-Corporation from taking possession or invoking the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Eviction Act for resuming the respective plots allotted to the respective applicants till the completion of the arbitral proceedings.
2. The respective applicants in these applications were allotted plots by the respondent-Corporation and they were put in possession of the same. Under the respective contracts by which allotments were made, certain obligations had to be fulfilled by both the parties. The respondent had made a claim against the respective applicants informing them that they have not fulfilled the terms and conditions and therefore, their respective allotments will have to be cancelled. Certain charges have also been levied by the respondent against the applicants, which are put to challenge in these applications by the respective applicants.
3. In O.A.No.137 of 2023 and O.A.No.138 of 2023, this Court granted interim orders in favour of the applicants on 23.02.2023 and in O.A.No.210 of 2023, interim order was granted in favour of the applicant on 15.3.2023. The respondent has filed counters in O.A.No.137 of 2023 and O.A.No.210 of 2023 and insofar as O.A.No.138 of 2023 is concerned, counter has not been filed by the respondent. Till date no arbitral tribunal has been constituted and both the parties have not initiated arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained under the respective contracts. Admittedly, there is an arbitration agreement contained in all three contracts which are the subject matter of these applications.
4. Now, both the counsels on instructions have made an endorsement in the Court bundle that the applicants as well as the respondent are agreeable for arbitration by an Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. The said endorsement is recorded.
5. Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stipulates that arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of 90 days from the date of the order passed in favour of the applicants or within such time as the Court may determine.
6. Interim orders were passed by this Court in favour of the applicants in O.A.No.137 of 2023 and O.A.No.138 of 2023 on 23.2.2023 and O.A.No.210 of 2023 on 15.3.2023. Three months period stipulated for the applicants under Section 9 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, from the date of grant of interim orders in their favour has got over now. But, however, the learned counsel for the applicants would submit that since there was a Court vacation in the interregnum, this Court by exercising the power available to it under Section 9(2) of the Act can extend the period for initiating arbitration if this Court deems it fit to do so.
7. This Court, after giving due consideration to the fact that the applicants are having the benefit of interim orders till date and in view of the fact that there was Court vacation for a period of one month after the date when the applicants had obtained interim orders, is inclined to extend the interim orders granted in all these applications in favour of the applicants for another period of three weeks to enable the applicants to approach the arbitral tribunal under Section